Sitting of 5 October 1909

Preamble
The House being met, Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, at the request of Mr. SPEAKER, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 1.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Godavari District, India (Headquarters).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has since 11th August of the present year received any information to the effect that it is proposed to reopen the question of transferring the headquarters of the Godavari district from Coconada to Rajahmundry?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (The Master of Elibank): The answer is in the negative. A reply has not yet been received to the inquiry made in consequence of the question asked by my hon. Friend on 11th August.

  Business Intimidation (Calcutta).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State had received any reply from India regarding the allegation that many warehouses in Calcutta are crowded with fabrics from England which cannot be sold owing to the intimidation practised by the boycotters of Bengal?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Government of India state that the inquiries made by them show that the boycott was only a secondary factor in the recent congestion of stocks of English fabrics in Calcutta. The stocks in warehouses were highest in January, 1908, but since that date they have steadily declined, and deliveries are reported to be improving daily.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the hon. Gentleman state whether the Government has any information to show that intimidation has been practised in connection with the boycotting?
  The MASTER of ELI BANK: I will make inquiries.

  Midnapur Appeal (Conduct of Police).
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the inquiry instituted by the Government of India into the conduct of the police officials condemned by the High Court of Calcutta in the Midnapur appeal, on 1st June, has been concluded; if so, with what result; and whether the police officers in question are still in the service of the Government?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has not yet heard whether the inquiry has been concluded.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the finding by the High Court of Calcutta in the Midnapur appeal that a confession of guilt was extorted by the police from one of the accused by keeping him for many days in solitary confinement in a condemned cell, in breach of the law, and waking him up every three hours, and threatening his father with pains and penalties if his son did not confess, and in view of the evidence contained in this and other recent judicial utterances of the existence of the practice of the police, condemned by Sir Andrew Fraser's Commission, of extorting evidence by illegal pressure of various kinds, the Government of India will consider the need for thorough reforms in the methods of investigating crime?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: Perhaps I may reply to this question by referring the hon. Member to the very full statement that I made on the subject last Tuesday. I do not feel that I have anything either to add or to modify. The Government of India keep the matter constantly before them, and any case of such practices that may be established against the police is met by severe punishment of the guilty persons.
  Mr. REES: Will the hon. Gentleman state whether there is any alternative for policing the natives of India by the natives other than the wholesale substitution of Europeans or the introduction of martial law?

  Imprisonment for Seditious Offences (India).
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State had been called to the fact by the law of England all persons imprisoned for offences

  1827
  of a seditious nature are entitled to be treated as first-class misdemeanants; and whether, in view of the number of British subjects in India who have, within the last two years, been sentenced to long terms of rigorous imprisonment for seditious writing or speaking, he will consult the Government of India on the advisability of assimilating the treatment of Indian prisoners in such cases to that adopted in England?
  The MASTER of ELIBANK: The Secretary of State has the question under his consideration.

  Alipore Conspiracy.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE (on behalf of Sir Henry Cotton)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that the speeches of Mr. Arabindo Ghose were laid before the court as evidence against him in the Alipore conspiracy case; that the judge who tried that case took those speeches into his consideration and declared in his judgment that those speeches in themselves seemed to advocate nothing more than the regeneration of his country, and that Mr. Ghose was acquitted; and whether, having regard to these facts, His Majesty's Government will direct the release of Mr. Kolhatkar, who has been sentenced to 15 months' hard labour for republishing the speeches of Mr. Ghose in his newspaper?
  The MASTER of ELI BANK: The charge against the person referred to was that he disseminated seditious matter. It was tried by an Indian judge. The sentence was taken on appeal to the highest Court of Appeal in the province. That Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence. An obiter dictum by the Sessions Judge in the Alipore conspiracy case, who was careful to state that he was not concerned with the question whether a charge of sedition could be laid at Mr. Ghose's door in respect of his speeches, is not relevant in regard to the decision of a judge of equal rank in Nagpur, upheld, so far as the establishment of the charge of sedition was concerned, by the highest tribunal of the province.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Is it not a fact that the sedition referred to consists solely of perpetuating certain speeches which have been held to be non-seditious?
  Mr. REES: May I ask the hon. Member whether the gentleman who made that speech is not a notorious enemy of British rule and British administration?

  Dundee Eastern Poorhouse Suicide.
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the case of attempted suicide in the Dundee Eastern Poorhouse some five months ago; whether he is aware that the committee appointed by the Dundee Parish Council to inquire into this case expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation of the medical inspector of the Local Government Board; and whether, in view of the above facts and the assertions which have been made against certain officials in the Dundee Eastern Poor-house Hospital as to the treatment of patients, he will institute a public inquiry, under the Local Government Board, to investigate into the assertions made?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. Ure): In April last the case of attempted suicide referred to was formally reported to the Local Government Board. The circumstances were at once inquired into by the Board's medical inspector, who, in view of the facts then elicited, formed the opinion that the accident was such as might have occurred in any institution, however well managed. The Board was not able to attach blame to any of the poorhouse staff. Two months after the accident, and a month after the death of the inmate, a subcommittee of the parish council was appointed to inquire into certain allegations affecting the poorhouse administration, and, in particular, the actions of the resident medical officer. It is the case that the sub-committee, in their report of 11th August, expressed the view that the investigation made by the medical inspector into the suicide was not so full as the seriousness of the case required, and held that the resident medical officer was to blame. The facts elicited by the medical inspector and by the evidence taken before the sub-committee leave ground in the opinion of the Local Government Board for a legitimate difference of opinion; but, on the 24th of August last the Local Government Board expressed their satisfaction with the adequacy of the sub-committee's inquiry into the various complaints, and, as the resident medical officer had resigned in June, intimated that they did not propose to hold any supplementary inquiry. As the subcommittee has advanced good reasons for

  1829
  considering that the complaints, so far as substantiated, were all directly or indirectly due to the conduct of the resident medical officer, and, as he has long ago ceased to be a member of the poorhouse staff, the Local Government Board does not propose to reopen the inquiry.

  Home Office Employés
  Mr. RENTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say how many officials, established and non-established, including non-pensionable employés, were in the service of the Home Office on the 31st March, 1906, and on 30th June, 1909, respectively?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Gladstone): The numbers of officials paid from the Home Office Vote on the dates stated were as follows: On 31st March, 1906, established, 297; non-established, 116. On 30th June, 1909, established, 377; non-established, 157.

  Lead Poisoning (Swansea District).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the right hon. Gentleman what was the number of cases of lead poisoning during 1908 in the Swansea district in the spelter, lead, and silver works; whether such cases are on the increase; and, if so, whether any additional safeguards are to be introduced with a view to the prevention, as far as possible, of such cases in the future?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: The number of cases in 1908 was 38, as compared with nine in 1907; but in the first eight months of this year there were 24 cases, as compared with 28 in the corresponding period of 1908. A special inquiry has been made by one of the medical inspectors of factories in regard to lead smelting and certain allied industries, and his report, which includes recommendations for further precautions, has just been received, and is under consideration.

  German Navy (Super-"Dreadnought").
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the period which has taken place between the laying of the keel of the last German super-"Dreadnought" and the launch of the same?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I am not aware to which ship the hon. and gallant Member refers under the name of "super-'Dreadnought.'"

  H.M.S. "Hermione."
  Captain FABERasked the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the captain of H.M.S. "Hermione," during the recent evidence on the running aground of that ship, stated that he did not have two leadsmen in the chains because he was short handed under the nucleus crew system; and whether it is possible to increase the complement of the seaman class in nucleus crews in future?
  Mr. McKENNA: This was one reason given in by the captain of the "Hermione" for there not being a second leadsman in the chains on the occasion of the "Hermione" grounding. The Admiralty do not consider that the number of seaman ratings is insufficient.
  Mr. RENWICK: Are any ships sent to sea during the winter months with nucleus crews?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes. Constantly.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the command of nucleus crews laid down by regulations?
  Mr. McKENNA: I must have notice of that question.

  Rear-Admiral Sturdee.
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state why Rear-Admiral Sturdee, who was appointed admiral in September, 1908, has since that date been passed over for promotion by four officers junior to himself?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in error in supposing that Rear-Admiral Sturdee has been passed over for promotion. On reaching the top of the Rear-Admiral's list he will be promoted in due course.

  H.M.S. "Invincible" (Refit).
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state when the "Invincible" will be ready for service, and how much of her so-called refit is comprised in the renovation of her heavy gun-mountings; and what are the dates of her completion for sea, her first commissioning, and of commencing her refit?
  Mr. McKENNA: The "Invincible" was completed for sea and left contractor's works for Portsmouth on 17th March, 1909; the date of first commissioning was 20th March, 1909; and the date of coming into dockyard hands was 17th August, 1909. It is hoped she will be ready for sea early in November.
  Captain FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me how long it is usual for a new ship to run before she goes in for repairs?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should think much longer than the period in the present case, but I cannot give the precise period.
  Captain FABER: Has the "Invincible" been a shorter time needing repair than is usually the case?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should think so, but I cannot say without reference.

  Tuberculosis in the Navy.
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the number of men discharged from the Navy during the years 1899 to 1908 suffering from tuberculosis; whether, on their discharge, any provision for the treatment of the disease in a home or hospital was made by his Department on their behalf; and whether any money grant was made to such men?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of officers and men finally invalided from the service (including Marines) for tuberculosis for the years 1899 to 1908 is 2,673, made up as follows: 1899, 207; 1900, 165; 1901, 232; 1902, 288; 1903, 334; 1904, 353; 1905, 331; 1906, 214; 1907, 266; 1908, 283. No special provision is made for their treatment on their discharge in a home or hospital. They are paid gratuities or pensions, according to their service, under the ordinary Regulations.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: Are all these men medically examined before being accepted for service?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; all the men before being accepted for service are medically examined.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: May I ask whether any notification is sent out by the Admiralty to the medical officers of the towns to which they go when they are discharged?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is uncertain to which towns they may be going. I do not think any notification is sent to the medical officers of any particular towns.
  Mr. RENWICK: Do the Admiralty make any inquiries before the men are discharged, as to whether they have any homes to which to go, or whether they have any means to enable them to get the necessary treatment for their disease?
  Mr. McKENNA: There has been no change in the practice of the Admiralty in that respect for a great many years.
  Mr. RENWICK: Then they are simply sent adrift without any consideration as to their future?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; the hon. Gentleman would be entirely wrong in taking it that way.

  Portsmouth Dockyard (Discharges and Overtime).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that men are being discharged from Portsmouth Dockyard, four on the 18th of the month and five on the 22nd, and that other men are working overtime their number ranging from 35 to 69, and not 25 only; whether he is aware that many men who were engaged last year, and who are working during the day on ordinary work, are put on special work after the ordinary working hours; whether he is aware that there are already many men capable of performing this class of work, known as torpedo-tube work, upon which some of the men have worked for periods ranging from 10 to 30 years; and whether he can recommend the Department to put more men on the tube and gauges, and thereby obviate the working of overtime and the discharging of men who may be required in the future?
  Mr. McKENNA: Discharges are not now taking place. The four men discharged on the 18th, and the five men on the 22nd of last month, were included in the discharges referred to in answers to previous questions on this subject. As already stated, not more than 25 men are working overtime in the new factory, the average for the past ten days being slightly below that number. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the third part of the question, all those capable are engaged on the work. The men discharged had all less than three years' service, and were not competent to undertake work of this character. In regard to the fourth part of the question, no additional men can be advantageously employed at present. Overtime was being worked in the Constructive Department on the preparation for the launch of the "Neptune," but this could not be avoided by any question of retention of men, as much of it was due to tidal considerations, and the remainder

  1833
  necessary to utilise the full capacity of air-compressing plant, which was being worked to its utmost for 24 hours per day.

  Royal Navy (Boys and Youths).
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of boys and youths in the Navy under 16 years of age, and the number between 16 and 18 years of age?
  Mr. McKENNA: On 15th August last there were approximately 4,678 boys of all classes in the Royal Navy between the ages of 16 and 18, and 256 under 16 years of age.

  Naval Officers' Wives (Travelling Expenses).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now state whether it has been decided to pay the travelling expenses of officers' wives when the base of a fleet is shifted?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not the intention of the Admiralty to pay the travelling expenses in the circumstances stated.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman see his way to do the same for the wives of officers in the Navy as the War Office do for the wives of officers in the Army?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; I can only repeat the answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman.

  Destroyers and Torpedo Boats (Speed Trials).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the measured mile on the Maplin Sands is considered suitable for the speed trials of destroyers or torpedo boats; and, if not, what is the reason for the objection?
  Mr. McKENNA: The measured mile on the Maplin Sands is not considered suitable for the speed trials of destroyers or torpedo boats, which exceed certain limits of speed, unless the results are subjected to examination and revision. The reason for this revision is that the speed of a vessel is, in certain cases, affected materially by the draught of water in which she is run, and may be in some cases increased, and in other cases decreased, by the small depth of water on the course.

  Second Flotilla Destroyers (Quarterly Trials).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state on what dates
  1834
  during the past 12 months the destroyers of the Second Flotilla have carried out the quarterly trials laid down for them in the Regulations?
  Mr. McKENNA: Of the 24 destroyers in this flotilla 15 have made quarterly trials at different dates within the period named. The necessity for the trials depends on the service on which the ship has been engaged; in many cases such trials are not required by the Regulations.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the Regulations with regard to this second flotilla have been carried out in every respect?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, in every respect.

  Mercantile Marine (Asiatic Seamen).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death at sea from consumption, on 18th March, 1909, of an Asiatic seaman named Kabrual, whilst serving on the steamer "Indrani," of Liverpool; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he served on the vessel, and whether he had any previous sea service; whether steps were taken to isolate him from the rest of the crew; and whether any other cases of death from this disease have occurred on this vessel?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. H. J. Tennant): The Asiatic seaman referred to in the question was a stowaway who was found on board the "Indrani" on the day she left New York for the Fast. He stated that he had been a storekeeper on board the steamer "Ghazee," but had deserted in order to get back to Singapore. As he had a cold and cough, he was put on light work and given nourishing food, and on arrival at Port Said he was examined by a doctor, who pronounced him to be suffering from consumption, and supplied medicine, but he died before reaching Sahang. He was not isolated from the rest of the crew. He had been six weeks on board the "Indrani," and appears to have had previous sea service. No other death from consumption has occurred on board this vessel during the last three years. The "Indrani" is regularly employed in trading between New York and the East, and has not been in the United Kingdom since the date of the occurrence.
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the suicide at sea, on 14th April, 1909, of an Asiatic seaman named Abdool Azis Doomon, whilst serving on the steamer "Umlazi," of London; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long had he served on the vessel; whether he had any previous sea service; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Asiatic seaman referred to in the question was third cook on board the "Umlazi." He was sent to the pump for a bucket of water, and, being a long time absent, the second cook went to meet him and took the bucket from him, when he immediately jumped overboard. Prompt attempts were made to save him without success. The man had been on board the "Umlazi" 47 days, but I am not aware whether he had had previous sea service. He is believed to have been medically examined before joining. The vessel carried a fully qualified medical staff. Two other cases of supposed suicide in thi3 vessel have been reported during the last three years. The "Umlazi" is regularly employed in trading between India and South Africa, and has not been in the United Kingdom since the dates of these occurrences.

  Port of London Act (Schedule of Dues).
  Mr. J. H. SEAVERNSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the schedule of dues on goods circulated for the consideration of traders by a committee of the London Port Authority is estimated to produce an annual revenue of £1,250,000; whether this is ten times the amount estimated by the Board of Trade prior to the passage of the Port of London Act to be necessary for the improvement of the port; whether it is more than three times the amount authorised for collection under the Act; and will he represent to the Port Authority the advisability of making their schedule conform to the Act itself?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Board of Trade have not been furnished with a copy of the Schedule. I understand it has not yet been finally settled by the Port Authority, but has merely been circulated in draft to traders by a committee of the Authority in a tentative way. I cannot say whether my hon. Friend's estimate of it is accurate. I may further remind him that the Schedule
  1836
  of maximum port rates on goods must by law be submitted to the Board of Trade, and that when so submitted it will form the subject of an inquiry at which all persons interested will be permitted to make objections and that it will subsequently be embodied, with any modifications which the Board may make, in a Provisional Order requiring confirmation by Parliament before it comes into force. In these circumstances I am not prepared to make any representation to the Port Authority at present.
  Mr. SEAVERNS: May I ask whether it is not a fact that support from the trade of London to the Port of London Act was secured on the statements made by the Board of Trade that these dues would not exceed from £75,000 to £150,000 a year; whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that great resentment has been caused in the City by the publication of these far higher rates, and whether he will secure a copy of the circular and make representations to the Port Authority?
  Mr. H. J. TENNANT: I am not aware of the first statement made by my hon. Friend, but, of course, if he informs me that there has been great resentment in the City of London, I am very sorry to hear it. It is the first I have heard of it. If the hon. Gentleman puts that question to me, I will make inquiries of the Port Authority as to the representations made before the Bill became law and make representations to them; but I should like the hon. Member to communicate with me before I take such steps.

  Ready-made Clothing (Home Work).
  Mr. RENWICKasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that several ready-made clothing manufacturers now only cut out, the garments in this country and, after doing so, send them to the Continent to be stitched and completed and afterwards returned here ready for sale; and whether, in view of the unemployment existing, any means can be adopted to ensure that the whole of the work upon such clothing can be done at home?
  Mr. TENNANT: No instances of the practice in question have been brought to my notice, and I have no reason to believe that it is widespread. I am not of opinion that any interference with the normal course of foreign trade is calculated to diminish unemployment.
  Mr. RENWICK: May I ask whether he will make inquiries in Harwich as regards this traffic between Harwich and Continental ports?
  Mr. H. J. TENNANT: Inquiries have been made of the two authorities dealing with such matters—the Customs authorities and Inspectors of Factories—and no practice of the kind referred to has ever been brought to their attention.

  Lights of Vehicles Act.
  Mr. H. A. WATTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has had any complaints as to the working of the Lights on Vehicles Act of 1907; have the farmers affected by it lodged any objection to its clauses with his Department; and will he, in view of its effect in England and Wales, recommend the Local Government Board of Scotland to introduce similar legislation for Scotland?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this question on behalf of my right hon. Friend, as the Home Office is the central authority under the Lights on Vehicles Act, 1907. I have received only one objection to the Act from farmers; this was made before the Act came into operation, and was forwarded to me by the Board of Agriculture. Whether or not the circumstances in Scotland are such as to call for similar legislation in that country is a matter on which I have not sufficient information to justify me in making a recommendation.
  Mr. WATT: May I ask whether the so-called insuperable hostility of the farmers has been entirely overcome?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I do not know anything about the insuperable hostility of the farmers.
  Major RENTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to his opposition to the extension of the Act to Scotland?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: That is a matter for the Scotch Office and the Scotch Members of Parliament.

  Old Age Pensions Disallowed (Ireland).
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether Patrick Behan, of Doonaha East, county Clare, has been in receipt of a pension under the Old Age Pensions Act; whether that pension has been disallowed in accordance with the recommendation of the pension officer; whether he is aware that the Reverend P. Glynn, of Carrigaholt, signed a statement
  1838
  to the effect that he was satisfied that Patrick Behan was more than 70 years of age; and whether, in view of the facts stated, he will direct that the pension be allowed?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The pension granted has not been disallowed. The case is at present under appeal to the Local Government Board, with whom the decision rests on the question raised by the pension officer.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he was aware that Mrs. Maria Burns, of Labasheeda, county Clare, has been in receipt of a pension under the Old Age Pensions Act, and that the pension has been discontinued; whether he would state the reason for that discontinuance; whether he was aware that local testimony is available to prove that Maria Burns was 23 years of age at the time of her marriage 48 years ago; and whether he would, in view of these facts, direct that the pension shall be again accorded to Mrs. Burns?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: This pensioner was found to be only seven years old in the census of 1851, and was accordingly disqualified by the Local Government Board on a question raised by the pension officer. I have no power to interfere with that decision.

  Old Age Pension (Grant Delayed).
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in the event of the consideration of an application for an old age pension having been unduly delayed, but with the result that the pension was subsequently granted, he will take care that the payment be made retrospective so that the applicant may not suffer by reason of such delay?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Under the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act a pension granted to a person who has already attained the age of 70 commences to accrue on the first Friday after the claim has been allowed, and the Treasury has no power under the Act to direct payment as from an earlier date.

  Flogging Children (Elementary Schools).
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention had been called to the case of the headmaster of Woodstone Schools, Peterborough, who on 22nd

  1839
  of September last was convicted by the magistrates at Peterborough of assaulting a little boy of eight years of age, one of the pupils at such school, by flogging him with great and unreasonable severity, and was fined £2 and £2 1s. costs; whether he was aware that the doctor who attended the boy gave evidence that on examining him he found bruises on both hands, ten weals on the body, and one on the thigh; whether he was aware that this master had been previously convicted and fined for a similar offence; and whether, in view of the frequency of such cases, he will issue a circular from the Board of Education to the masters and managers of all schools under the control and supervision of the Board directing that the punishment of flogging should be, if not abolished altogether, at least confined to the most heinous offences and administered in a humane manner?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I have seen a brief newspaper report of this case, but I have no further information concerning it. The Board have no information as to any previous conviction of the headmaster in question. The answer to the concluding paragraph of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. I am not prepared to admit that such cases as this are of frequent occurrence, and I do not consider the issue of a circular to be either necessary or expedient. I may, however, refer my hon. Friend to the remarks on the subject of corporal punishment on page 11 of the Board's Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers and Others, published in 1905.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: Have then the teachers a certain amount of discretion as to whether or not they shall keep a record of the administration of corporal punishment?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: A certain amount of discretion is left to the head teachers, and in practice it is never abused.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: So that there is really no reliable record of eases of corporal punishment?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. I think the records are reliable.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: They do not include all the cases.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: In a case of gross assault on a child, like that referred
  1840
  to in the question, is the teacher to be allowed to retain his position?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have said the only information I have on the subject is a newspaper report. If there is any appeal I will of course consider the case.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Would it not be consistent with the duty of the Board when reports of this kind go uncontradicted to inquire into them?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that that is not the usual procedure. It is customary to wait for appeals.
  Mr. BYLESasked whether the headmaster of the National School, Ashford, who was recently fined £5 for flogging a child of ten with great and unreasonable severity, has been dismissed; and, if not, whether the Board of Education will insist on his dismissal?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to infer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Peterborough on the 29th September.
  Mr. BYLES: Is the right ton. Gentleman aware that the answer to which he refers me does not contain the information which my question seeks?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is the only answer I can give.
  Mr. BYLESasked the President of the Board of Education if he will furnish the hon. Member for North Salford with a copy of the Regulations of the Board in respect to the flogging of children in the elementary schools?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Schedule IV., 1 (e), of the Code provides that every public elementary school must have a punishment book, in which all cases of corporal punishment must be recorded. The Board do not issue any other regulations on this subject; but perhaps my hon. Friend will also study the remarks on the subject of corporal punishment on page 11 of the Board's "Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers and Others."
  Mr. BYLES: May I ask whether the Instruction that all cases of corporal punishment shall be recorded in the punishment book is not stultified by the suggestion that it is to be left to the discretion of head teachers to say what cases shall be placed on record?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already replied to that question. I do not think that in

  1841
  practice it does stultify the Instruction. The practice has not been known to work badly.
  Mr. PHILIP SNOWDEN: Is it not within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that no records are made of the cases of corporal punishment?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are constantly made. There may be cases where they the not made. I can say nothing about that.
  Sir D. F. GODDARD: What is the object of giving the exemption to certain headmasters in regard to making records?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No exemptions are made, but it must be perfectly obvious that in a matter of this kind some discretion must be left to headmasters. We cannot pretend, either here or at the Board of Education, to lay down regulations to cover every trivial case of punishment.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: Could not some regulation be laid down to prohibit the flogging of children under eight?

  Tuberculosis among Postal Employés.
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the Postmaster-General the number of men discharged from his Department during the years 1899 to 1908 suffering from tuberculosis; and whether, on their discharge, any provision for the treatment of the disease in a home or hospital was made by his Department on their behalf; and whether any money grant was made to such men.
  Captain NORTON (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer the questions addressed to him to-day. The number of established Post Office servants superannuated on account of tuberculosis during the past ten years is as follows:—

  Men.

  Women.

  1899

  …

  …

  72

  …

  11

  1900

  …

  …

  82

  …

  11

  1901

  …

  …

  95

  …

  21

  1902

  …

  …

  76

  …

  6

  1903

  …

  …

  104

  …

  15

  1904

  …

  …

  109

  …

  19

  1905

  …

  …

  96

  …

  18

  1906

  …

  …

  101

  …

  15

  1907

  …

  …

  81

  …

  15

  1908

  …

  …

  90

  …

  20

  The established force to which these figures refer numbered in 1908 (in round figures) 90,000. There is no official ar-
  1842
  rangement for affording treatment to Post Office servants suffering from tuberculosis. Every established officer retiring on account of ill-health is entitled either to a pension or a gratuity under the terms of the Superannuation Acts.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: Is no further provision beyond that indicated made for the recovery of patients from the disease? Are no precautions taken to prevent it spreading after they are discharged?
  Captain NORTON: Precautions are, I believe, taken with reference to the spreading of the disease, but there are no gratuities or pensions beyond those I have stated.
  Mr. SUMMERBELL: What precautions are taken against the spread of the disease?
  Captain NORTON: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will inquire and get the information.

  Postal Arrangements, Reelin Bridge, Donegal.
  Mr. CHARLES MacVEIGHasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the inhabitants of the large district around the Reelin Bridge, Cloughan, East Donegal, have their letters delivered to them about 9 a.m., and have no means of replying to them that day unless by special messenger to Cloughan, over two miles distant; and whether he will take steps to have a letterbox placed at the Reelin Bridge and cause the postboy to clear it each evening, and thereby save the people loss and inconvenience?
  Captain NORTON: My right hon. Friend is having inquiry made on the subject.

  Irish Intermediate Education Board (Book-prize Winners).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain the cause of the delay on the part of the Intermediate Board in issuing a list of the book-prize winners; and can he state when the results will be published?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): This question, with others on the same subject, will be submitted to the Commissioners of Intermediate Education at their next Boards meeting on the 22nd instant.
  Mr. BOLAND: Could not this question be answered by the secretary to the Intermediate Board? Are we to understand that the whole machinery of that Board is thrown out of gear between meetings?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know how that may be. The answer given me is that the question will be submitted to the Board at their next meeting. They may attach more importance to it than the hon. Member does.
  Mr. BOLAND: But there are a sufficient number of Members of the Board living in Dublin to form a quorum for a meeting at any time. Could not the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have special meetings called to deal with these cases of public interest?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot say if a list of book-prize winners can be deemed of such tremendous interest as to necessitate a special meeting. I have no control over this Board; I can only make suggestions to them. They tell me this matter will be considered at their next meeting.

  Relief of Congestion (West of Ireland).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board has taken any steps to ascertain to what extent owners of grazing lands in the West of Ireland are willing to sell their lands for the purpose of relieving congestion; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In the autumn of 1907 the Congested Districts Board sent out circular letters to 546 owners of grass lands in the counties of Roscommon, Galway, Sligo, and Mayo, asking them whether they were prepared to sell such grass lands to the Board, and requesting them, if so prepared, to name the price and to permit inspection of the lands by the Board's valuers. The circular letter stated that the Board's request was not intended to refer to demesne land appurtenant to residences or to lands which had been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners. The replies received by the Congested Districts Board were to the following effect: In 103 cases owners replied that they were not willing to sell, and in 244 cases no replies were received; that is to say in 347 cases, or nearly two-thirds of the total, owners either expressly or tacitly refused to sell. In 52 cases owners expressed their willingness to sell, and in 23 further cases they were willing to sell provided that their tenanted lands also were bought. In 74 cases the owners
  1844
  stated that the lands had been offered for sale or sold to the Estates Commissioners, and in six cases the lands had been sold or were being sold to tenants direct. In 35 cases it was stated that the lands sought to be acquired were either tenanted, demesne, or residential land, and in the remaining nine cases the owners' replies were of an indefinite character. The 546 circular letters related to grass lands of a total extent of 228,648 acres and a Poor Law valuation of £112,415, whereas in the four counties to which the circulars were issued the Poor Law valuation of the land required to bring all the small holdings up to a valuation of £2 per head (i.e., £10 per family) would amount to £228,395. The 52 cases in which owners were willing to sell related to 17,785 acres, the Poor Law valuation of which was £9,142. The 347 cases in which owners refused to sell related to 105,418 acres, with a Poor Law valuation of £52,548. Of the 52 cases in which owners expressed their willingness to sell, the Board have bought or agreed to buy in 11 cases, and the Board's offer was refused in three cases. In the remaining 38 cases the Board were obliged last year to suspend negotiations for purchase owing to their lack of funds for expenditure upon the improvement and creation of holdings. The present Bill provides the funds necessary for the purpose.
  Mr. BELLOC: Arising out of that reply, as it is of some length, may I be justified in asking the Chief Secretary whether we may say roughly, from the figures, that out of those cases about one-tenth of the owners of the land agreed to sell, and rather over two-thirds refused to deal with the Government in one way or another?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That may be right. I think it is right; but the best thing would be to circulate the answer so that hon. Members may do their own sums.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask whether the Congested Districts Board desires to take land for the purpose of relieving congestion in a case where the land is used for grazing cattle belonging to small holders in the neighbourhood?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board desire to acquire all the untenanted land they possibly can for the relief of congestion.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is it not far better for the locality to have this land with cattle turned on to it than that it should be cut up amongst two or three tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think that is so.
  Mr. ARTHUR LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply, some time, information with regard to the untenanted land in county Clare?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will endeavour to do.

  Catholic Chaplains for Transports.
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the "Soudan" transport left Malta for China on 23rd September with the Inniskilling Fusiliers and other troops, of whom, in the Fusiliers alone, 300 were Catholics; whether many of the men were married and accompanied by their families; whether, contrary to usage, no Catholic chaplain sailed with the transport; whether the Catholic officers on board complained of the disappointment of their men; whether the presence of clergymen with large bodies of soldiers has been found, both in war and peace, conducive to discipline and good conduct; and what is the explanation of the departure from usage in this case?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland): The statements in the first two parts of the hon. and learned Member's question are substantially correct. As regards the third and sixth parts, I must explain that owing to the extended character of the voyages taken and the constant changes in the personnel of the troops on board, it is not the practice of the War Department to place chaplains on board transports conveying Colonial reliefs. As regards the fourth and fifth parts, no complaints have been brought to my notice in this instance, but it is no doubt the case that the presence of clergymen with large bodies of soldiers is conducive, but by no means necessary, to discipline and good conduct, and the Department endeavours to arrange for their presence wherever practicable.

  Small Holdings, Gloucestershire.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he was aware that James White, Edward Seals, George Tovey, and George Farrell applied to the Gloucestershire County Council for 14 acres of land between them two years ago; that they were all approved as suitable applicants by the small holdings committee; and that these men desired 14 acres out of a farm of 500 acres let, after their application in March, 1908, to Mr. Ely, of Mayes Hill; and would
  1846
  he say why no land whatever had been offered the applicants during this long period of time?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): We are informed that Messrs. White, Sayles and Tovey are approved applicants, but Mr. Farrell does not appear to have applied to the county council. The other applicants asked for 10 acres of pasture off Mayshill Farm, which was let to the present tenant prior to the receipt of the applications of Messrs. White and Sayles on 13th April, 1908. As the tenant has the right to break up the pasture on his farm the council did not consider the land in his occupation would suit the applicants' requirements, but they have endeavoured to obtain other land, and negotiations are still in progress. It is, I understand, very difficult to acquire suitable land in this neighbourhood at a reasonable price.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether he would inquire of the Gloucestershire County Council small holdings committee whether John Dando, dairyman, John Clark, farmer, William Allen, cow-keeper, F. Matthews, baker, and Allen Williams, barber, have been applicants for small holdings to the committee for more than a year; whether they have all been approved as suitable applicants; and whether the committee propose to exercise their compulsory powers of acquiring land to satisfy these men?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The applicants referred to have been approved with the exception of Mr. Clark, who is considered to have already as much land as he can manage. The county council have been unable as yet to obtain any land at a reasonable price, and they inform us that there does not appear to be any suitable land in the locality in respect of which compulsory powers could be exercised. If my hon. Friend has any information to the contrary, perhaps he will be good enough to let me have it.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether he was aware that one Seth Dyer, of Acton Lane, Gloucestershire, applied to the Gloucestershire County Council for a small holding; that his application was approved; that the small holdings committee applied to a Mr. Henry Perrett, brewer, to let or sell land belonging to him to Dyer; that Mr. Perrett then saw Dyer and offered him a convenient field at £9 per annum; and

  1847
  that, on Dyer's saying he would take it, Mr. Perrett asked him whether he would rather rent of him, Perrett, or the county council, and that, on Dyer's replying of the county council, Mr. Perrett then let the field to another man forthwith; and would he say what further efforts the committee had made to supply this man with land?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We are informed that Mr. Dyer is an approved applicant, and that Mr. Perrett offered land to the county council. The rent which would have to be charged was, however, higher than Mr. Dyer was willing to pay, and the offer was therefore not accepted. Mr. Perrett then let the land direct at a higher rent. The county council inform us that they have no knowledge of the alleged communications between Messrs. Perrett and Dyer, and they consider that the latter is not prepared to pay a reasonable rent for the land he requires.

  Tithe Commutation.
  Captain FABERasked the Prime Minister if he would state whether, seeing that great quantities of corn never come into the market at all for averages, and that some land is only worth tithe value, and some not even that, he would consider the advisability of providing that tithe shall be levied on a proportional value of annual rent instead of as at present?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Both the points raised have been frequently considered and found to present insuperable practical difficulties. They could only be taken up as part of a reconsideration of the whole question of tithe commutation, which is not at present contemplated.

  Norfolk River Conservators (Public Rights).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Provisional Order applied for by the Norfolk River Conservators, under The Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act, 1907, only deals with the administration of public rights on waters where no question arises as to the existence of public rights, whereas the Petition recently presented on behalf of the mayor and corporation of the city of Norwich, and a number of the inhabitants of Norfolk and Suffolk and other persons interested in the preservation and free opening of the Norfolk broads and
  1848
  rivers, asks for an inquiry into the existence of public rights on waters where those rights are questioned, for the purpose of public and private rights being clearly ascertained and legally defined; and whether he would reconsider the matter with a view to the prayer of the memorialists being granted?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The application for the Provisional Order is not limited to "the administration of public rights" or to "waters where no question arises as to the existence of public rights." The Government think it desirable to await the Report of the inquiry which is about to be made before coming to any decision as to the appointment of a Royal Commission as suggested.

  Small Holdings, South Marston, Wiltshire.
  Mr. MASSIEasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether the Board are aware that since the inquiry held in June last, at the instance of the parish council of South Marston, with a view to the compulsory acquisition of land for small holdings and allotments and the erection of cottages, the chairman of the parish council, who supported the application and was himself an applicant and had been a resident in the parish for 40 years, has received from the principal landlord notice to quit his cottage and also his allotment, and that a similar notice has been served upon another parish councillor, while two other applicants in the village for land and cottages are likewise in process of eviction; and whether, in these new circumstances and considering that no other cottages are available, the Board will use their powers with the Wiltshire County Council in the interest of the applicants for land and the requisite buildings thereon?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board have been informed that one of the applicants has received notice from his landlord to quit his house, but we have no information as to the other cases. If the hon. Member will supply us with particulars we will instruct an inspector to inquire into the matter on the spot.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether a man who is stated to have been a resident in the parish for over 40 years worked for the Great Western Railway Company at Swindon, five miles away; whether he is 59 years of age; and whether his cottage

  1849
  was let to him on the understanding that if it was required for agricultural purposes he should vacate it?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not think the hon. Baronet can expect me to reply to that question now.

  Imprisoned Suffragettes (Supply of Food).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask a question of which I have been able to give the Home Secretary very short notice. The information reached me only a short time ago. The question is whether he has been informed that Miss Ainsworth, who was released this morning from Winson Green Gaol, Birmingham, alleges that a steel instrument was used to force open the mouth of those women who have had to be fed by force, and a cork gag was inserted to keep the mouth open; and whether, in view of his former statement that this had not been done, he has received any fresh official information on the subject?
  Mr. BELLOC: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question I wish to ask whether in this matter anything different has been done to women from what has been done to men in times past without protest from any part of this House?
  The HOME SECRETARY (Mr. Gladstone): Of course the treatment has been applied to men without demur. As regards the question put by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, I only received it ten minutes ago. Perhaps he will be good enough to put it on the Paper.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes, certainly.

  Hauling Down United States Flag (Clonmel).
  Mr. T. J. CONDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that on the occasion of the arrival of two distinguished American citizens visiting Clonmel to-day to receive the freedom of the borough, for which occasion the town is being decorated, the police commanded Mr. Stephen M'Grath to haul down the United States flag which he had run up on his house in honour of the distinguished visitors, and when he refused to do so the police forcibly hauled down the flag and threatened Mr. M'Grath, a prominent citizen and a licensed publican; and what steps, if any, he will take to stop these insults to the American flag?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I only received the question a moment ago and have had no means of obtaining any information as to this alleged occurrence at Clonmel, but I will ascertain what the facts are in regard to it.
  Mr. CONDON: The facts are as I have stated.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[41st Day.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

FINANCE BILL.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(See col. 1669–1679, Official Report, 4th October.)
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSmoved, in C. (Retailers' On-Licences) Spirits [Publican's Licence] to leave out the words "A duty equal to half the annual value of the licensed premises," and to insert instead therof the words "Duty specified in Scale 3."
  The Amendment is to substitute for the Government proposal a scale which appears in my name on the Paper, and its general object and effect is to equalise proportionally the duties with the annual value. At present we admit that there are anomalies. Shortly, they are that the low annual values are paying too highly, and that some of the higher ones might be reasonably charged more. We have always admitted that. The effect of my Amendment will be to bring the duties more into a reasonable scale of charge and at the same time to bring into the revenue not less but rather more money than they are at present receiving. May I give one or two instances to show what the difference will be between my scale and that of the existing duties. There is a considerable diminution in the rates for smaller houses. Up to the annual value of £15 the minimum will be £4 10s. A £20 house will pay £6 instead of £11, a £50 house will pay £13 15s. instead of £25, and a £100 house will pay, £25 instead of £30. With respect to houses over £100 the Annual Value Duty rises progressively. A £200 house will pay £45 instead of £35, a £300 house will pay £60 instead of £40, a £400 house will pay £70 instead of £45, and a £500 house will pay £75 instead of £50. The result of that would be that in the case of houses under £100 in annual value the revenue would lose about £255,000 in the year, but for houses of £100 or upwards the revenue would gain £279,000; there-

  1851
  fore, the net result would be that the revenue would gain about £23,000. I submit that the present duties should not be materially increased. It may be taken to be one of the canons of taxation that you should not tax any commodity more than it can bear, and we hold that the taxes on the liquor trade are now as high as the trade can reasonably be expected to bear. They contribute about 38½ millions a year out of a total tax revenue of £130,300,000, or 29.4 per cent. of the total revenue. I take these figures for the year ending March, 1908. In that amount of 38½ millions are included certain items which were not intended to fall on the trade or, at all events, to be permanent charges. Mr. Goschen, in 1890, proposed a purchase scheme of licences involving a sum of £440,000 a year. That money was devoted to local purposes, principally technical education and things of that character. Since then the revenue has received £8,000,000 in cash—money which was voted by this House for the purpose of purchasing redundant licences but devoted to other purposes. Then there are the war taxes which Sir Michael Hicks-Beach raised in 1900 of 1s. a barrel on beer and 6d. a gallon on spirits. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach stated distinctly that he regarded these war taxes as simply a temporary aid to the revenue, but they have been included by this Government in the permanent taxation of the country, and since they were imposed they have contributed in all 24½ millions of money.
  The next item I should like to mention is the compensation fund under the Act of 1904. The trade last year contributed £1,089,000 under that head. It is true that the money is devoted to paying compensation for those houses which the justices consider are not required, but still it is a burden which they have to bear, and therefore I include it in those other items which have been imposed upon the trade in recent years. While all this extra taxation has been piled upon the liquor trade, what has been happening with the consumption? The consumption has been gradually falling from year to year. The country, no doubt, is getting more temperate, and that is a matter in which we rejoice, but it is not a matter of congratulation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's point of view. The fall in the consumption of beer from the year 1899–90 to the year 1908–9 represents 3,500,000 standard barrels, and a drop per head of the population from 32.29 to 26.47 gallons.
  1852
  That fall of 5.82 gallons per head of the population in eight years was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech. Spirits show the same thing. There has been a falling off in the same period of nearly 9,000,000 gallons, or a drop per head of the population from 1.18 proof gallons to 87 proof gallon. When you find the taxation of the tirade increasing as it has been, and at the same time the consumption of liquor falling off very materially, it is not a time surely for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose further taxation on the trade.
  I should like to point out to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is going to reply, what the effect of these increased Licence Duties will be in one or two of our large county boroughs. Bristol, with the full licences, the beer on-licences and the wine on-licences, shows, under this Budget, an increased charge of £21,826, or 165.8 per cent.; Norwich shows an increase of £11,279, or 141.8 per cent.; Dover shows an increase of £5,849, or 172.8 per cent.; and Birmingham shows an increase of £43,153, or 193.9 per cent. In a previous Debate I mentioned the figures connected with the city I have the honour to represent, and therefore I will not enter into details, but I should like to say that the total increased burden on the city of Sheffield involved in the new duties, and the duties which have been increased or put on during the last eight years, amounts to £98,633. Do the Committee think that with these largely increased duties the trade can possibly continue to prosper? I know I shall be told that they do not wish it to prosper. It has been stated over and over again by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the object of the Government is to reduce licences. They tried to reduce licences last year, and fortunately they failed in their scheme. Hon. Gentlemen stated at that time most clearly—the Lord Advocate was one—that if the Licensing Bill was thrown out by the House of Lords they would adopt other methods to take their revenge. There was a letter published in the "Times" newspaper on 5th May last from two gentlemen interested in breweries, namely, Mr. E. N. Buxton and Mr. Whitbread. They said that the new charges which would fall on the two brewery companies with which they are connected under the heads alone of Licence Duty and Manufacturer's Duty would be £104,745. They further stated that these two companies divide among their ordinary shareholders £61,300. Comment is needless. If these figures are

  1853
  accurate, the whole of that dividend is going to be absorbed, and more than absorbed. I have figures from other brewery companies which I might give to the Committee, and which tell the same story. One company which has 30 fully-licensed houses in or near London pays Licence Duties at present amounting to £1,699, and under the new duties the amount will be £12,525, or between seven and eight times the present figure.
  I do not know what the position of the Prime Minister is in regard to these increased Licence Duties, but I do know that two years ago, before the introduction of the Licensing Bill, he stated very clearly that, in his opinion, any legislation which Parliament might pass should be such as not to inflict injury upon this trade. On 26th November, 1907, he said:—
  "In any legislation which the Government propose they will keep in view the legitimate interests of all persons who have invested their money in this licensed trade, which is a lawful trade, not prohibited by law, and a trade therefore the investors in which ought to be secure like the investors in every form of commercial or financial undertaking in the country against unreasonable or confiscatory legislation."
  I am afraid that since the Prime Minister spoke these words other influences have come over him—influences which we know very-well in this House have weighed with the Government, and they have been driven on first by the Licensing Bill of last year and now by a measure which is going to be a very great deal worse for the trade than that Bill was. Under the Licensing Bill a certain amount of compensation was to be given to houses which were to be extinguished during a period of 14 or 21 years. But under this Bill houses are going to be extinguished by taxation without a penny of compensation. That is the great distinction between the Bill of last year and this Budget. I hope I have stated the case impartially and fairly. I have no personal interest whatever in this trade, but I am concerned to see that justice is done to all classes of the community. May I appeal to the Government on four grounds? Firstly, on financial grounds, I say that the trade is already overburdened; secondly, consumption is declining and the temperance habits of the people are growing every day; thirdly, the Compensation Act of 1904 is working smoothly and well, and licences which are redundant are being reduced at the rate of something like 2,000 a year, without injustice, because the market value has been given; and, finally, I appeal on behalf of the thousands of persons who are connected with the trade
  1854
  from whom the State is receiving no less than 29 per cent. of its tax revenue, and who have invested their money and savings in it, relying that the State, under which the trade has grown up, would never round upon them and deprive them of that property and of their means of earning their livelihood.
  Mr. BELLOC: The Schedule proposed by the Government to which this in an Amendment seems to me to be taking a particular industry—indeed, I can see no way out of the conclusion—and asking that particular industry to pay a tax which not only in amount, though that is very important, but in nature and character is greater than any tax that has ever been imposed by a British Legislature upon a particular class of people. The particular Amendment proposed which I am supporting would have the effect if it were passed of destroying the principle which underlies the Schedule, the principle that half of the annual monopoly value, as it is called, of the licensed premises should be taken by the State. It seems to me that the selection of this particular industry, the laying of this particular tax upon it in this Schedule, does not proceed from any particular motive but from several confused motives, and you have, as you almost always have in legislation, a confusion of motives involving a more or less unworkable result. It seems to me that these three principles very clearly appear. The first, with which I heartily agree, with which I think all Radicals and Liberals agree, and with which probably in their heart of hearts the majority of the Opposition agree also, is that the monopoly created by the community must be restored to the community. It ought never to have been let slip from the community. Another principle is that whatever can pay at a time of acute national strain when a large sum of money has to be found must pay. The third principle, which has nothing to do with either of the others, is that it is immoral to consume fermented liquor. I have no doubt whatever that the latter insane proposal has not a little to do with the type of legislation which it is being sought to mend. As to the restoration to the State of the monopoly value undoubtedly created by the community, I support it, as does almost everyone who thinks clearly on these matters. I might go so far as to say that I wish personally that no such monopoly had ever been created at all. I am by no means convinced that the creation of a comparatively small number of privileged

  1855
  places in which the ordinary domestic habits of a people can be indulged is a good thing. I am not at all sure that we should not have done better to have followed the rest of European civilisation, the great countries—our rivals, lately our successful rivals—and let a man have freedom in this matter, punish him if he got drunk, but let him drink in moderation pretty well in whatever premises were ready to pay the minimum taxes. I am not at all sure we ought not to have done that, but that is hardly to the point. We have chosen for some considerable time past to limit these premises in number, and, therefore, to give them a monopoly value. That monopoly value has acquired, by prescription, something of the quality of property. Anyone who shuts his eyes to that denies a patent and a glaring fact in English life and in Irish life as well.
  It is no good to argue that in theory the State has got the right, if it likes, to take away licences at any moment. There is such a thing—and there always has been in human society, and always will be, and it is a profoundly moral thing—as property based on prescription. I gave a case some time ago when a similar principle was being debated in the earlier part of the Finance Bill of a constituent of my own who had inherited from his father, and had paid duty with it, a freehold which was licensed, and had upon it a very important hotel in my Constituency. His father in turn had inherited from his father. For three generations the family had this property, and it was the sole property of the family. I may add, though it is not logically relevant to the point, that all three of these men were very strong Liberals, and the third one is a Liberal on many matters, but not, I fear, on this. You have there a small property inherited with Death Duties paid upon it, and regarded by everyone connected with the family has an honest and permanent investment. How much of its success was due to the industry and the attention to business that build up a goodwill I cannot say. You now come down from that matter. There are hundreds like him up and down the country. It affects the smallest shareholders in breweries in thousands. You come in and say, "because in legal theory you are possessed of a monopoly created by the State, the State will begin to resume it at once at a shocking rate." If you doubt that the rate is shocking, I will put this very forcible comparison before the House.
  1856
  The man of whom I am speaking earned in the year 1907 very much the same sum of money by that inherited business, which he manages himself and works morning, noon, and night, as I by my pen and various lectures. We found, on comparing notes, that we had the same income, and you are asking him to pay under the Schedule a sum equal to more than one-third of his total earnings. [An HON. MEMBER: What was the income?"] If there were no inquisition in these matters, no such thing created by modern States, I would inform the hon. Gentleman, but as things are it is as well to let it alone.
  At any rate, the House may take it that it is a very large proportion of taxation, taxation which cannot in its nature be passed on to the consumer, and which comes straight out of that man's pocket. If you are prepared to deny that that prescriptive right exists in this case, then you must deny it in I know not how many cases to which taxation equally apply. What about the enclosure of commons? Suppose we who feel so strongly on the matter that the enclosure of commons was immoral in many cases came forward and said, "The State gave you the right through private Acts of Parliament to enclose these commons. We are going to take it away. We are going to take it away not by that power of purchase which the State always possesses over an individual on account of its longer life and its greater credit, but very largely, and at shockingly large amounts." If that were done with regard to the enclosed land it would be regarded as a grave injustice. It is equally an injustice when applied to the licensed trade. If you propose a scheme for the recovery of monopoly by the State by degrees, slowly and in such a fashion that the licensed freeholder or the shareholder in the brewery or what not felt the transition in a manner light and reasonable, I would support that policy; but I maintain that this Schedule is eminently unreasonable, and in its effects would be a shocking thing.
  4.0 P.M.
  The second point is that we are passing through a very heavy financial strain, and the money must be paid by those who can pay it. I heartily agree. But we are attempting to find, in my opinion—it is merely a personal opinion—more money than this country alone can find under the present system of private property. We have chosen to adopt an Imperial system which does not support us from outside; we have to find the defences of the Empire, or nearly all

  1857
  of them, within these islands. We have now to find 16 millions of money extra to what was expected a year or two ago and it is perfectly just, particularly when the country is undergoing a strain of this kind, that those who can pay should pay, even if they have to pay exceptionally. On that account I support, heavy as the taxation is, the Income Tax at the present rate, and I support also the Super-tax, which is on a sound principle. But what makes the Government think, what makes any reasonable man think, that this particular industry is on so flourishing a scale, or is in some way so hiddenly making money, that it should be taxed to this vast extent? What makes the Government think that those who have shares in brewery companies should be taxed to this vast extent? Where are the exceptional profits in these companies, or in these inherited premises which happen to be licensed? Where are the exceptional profits from free houses? They have become for two generations a fixed item of property. They have not gone through what is vulgarly called a boom. There is no vast margin on which you can suddenly draw as you might draw on more than one type of property of modern times. These licences are a type of property which is solid, but which, on the whole, is declining, and you cannot claim that you are producing this Schedule with the object of taxing people who can easily afford the taxation, which in justice they should have paid before, and which they are now escaping. As to the third principle, I am convinced, and I think most of us are convinced in our heart of hearts, that it lies at the bottom of this type of legislation—the principle that it is immoral to consume fermented liquor. I care not with what arguments you may attempt to fend me off in that matter, I care not by what amount of sophistry—and there is plenty of it in that camp—you may attempt to whittle down the point, the opinion of the common elector in this matter—and it is the opinion held throughout England, and held very vigorously up and down the country at the present moment—is that behind these proposals there lies much more than the desire to recover monopoly value back to the State, much more than the desire to fine taxable sources in order to meet the financial strain.
  The proposition that the consumption of fermented liquor is immoral is held by a tiny minority in the State, but unfortunately it is a minority whose vitality is augmented exceedingly by wealthy fad-
  1858
  dists. It is a minority of a few exceedingly wealthy families. [Laughter.] Hon. Members perhaps laugh because the spectacle of these families causes amusement to them as it does to me, or because they have not heard the facts. It is one or other of these alternatives. An audit of the secret Parliamentary funds would show that behind this Government there is a body of subscriptions, the vast majority of which proceed from men who hold that the consumption of fermented liquor is immoral. That is the main motive underlying the Schedule. On all three bases, the first of which is the most reasonable, and the last of which is preposterous, I object to these proposals. I object to them not only on the grounds of justice, but I object to them—though the word has fallen into disrepute I am not a little proud of it—as a democrat. I believe these proposals are opposed to the general sense of the people of England, and in imposing such taxation the Government are doing so with the aid of a body of men who are somewhat uninterested in the result, which may be oppressive. Those who have sent me here, and those who have sent most of us here, object to this particular portion of the Budget; but the land taxation Clauses are popular, and deservedly popular. They are not oppressive, they will produce a small sum for the moment, and they give the advantage in the future that the State needs are to be met on the basis on which the State has a right to collect. The Super-tax is not only not unpopular, but the vast majority upon whom it will fall are ready to pay it. The tax on tobacco, though pressing hard on the poor; the tax on tea, though pressing hard on the poor; though I should like to see them reduced, are accepted owing to the conditions of our financial life. This is a new system of taxation, and I have no hesitation in saying, if this Budget fails to become law, that it is one of the levers which may be used most powerfully for bringing about that result, and will be the most unhappy exception to the general principles contained in the Schedule.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am not going to follow the last speaker into a general disquisition on the general policy of the taxation of liquor licences, or argue once more that the State ought to have a share of the monopoly which has been granted. It is perfectly easy to prove the utter inadequacy of the existing scale of Licence Duties. All these things were

  1859
  dealt with when we discussed the Clause to which the Schedule is attached. We dealt with all the arguments advanced by the hon. Member who has just spoken. The proposal is based on the principle that compensation is the price of the insecurity of licences which existed before the Act of 1904. We had the bases of contribution to insurance funds, and the constitution of reserve funds which the insecurity of these licences rendered necessary. We showed that the War Taxes imposed by the late Government had been shifted on to the consumer. We showed that there was a declining consumption in the last 10 years, which followed on a very rapid increase of consumption in the previous 10 years. While the consumption has been declining, I think the number of sources of supplies has also been declining. I think we dealt also with all the points that the hon. Member for Salford made when he delivered his speech on that previous occasion, except, indeed, the remarkable obsession under which he labours that all things evil that may be proposed by this Government are due to the fact that the Liberal Government are bought up by wealthy teetotallers, whose subscription to our fund have resulted in these objectionable proposals. I remember when, some time ago, steps were taken to prevent a Roman Catholic procession, which at that time attracted much attention, from taking place in London, the hon. Member said that this also was the result of the action of a few rich Orangemen who subscribed funds to the party.
  Mr. BELLOC: What I said was that there was a body of wealthy Nonconformists who supported the Government, and who got together and put pressure on the Government at the last moment. That is literally true.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I speak from recollection, and I should be very sorry indeed to misrepresent the hon. Member; but I think my recollection is correct that the party funds came into question.
  Mr. BELLOC: Certainly.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: What I said is quite correct, and it is obviously an obsession which affects the hon. Member.
  Mr. BELLOC: We shall see who is right.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The figures given by the hon. Member opposite, I gather from him, refer to certain public-houses in the neighbourhood of London,
  1860
  whose Licence Duties have been increased sevenfold and eightfold on the average. Of course, they were exceptional cases, because no house could have its Licence Duty increased sevenfold unless its annual value was over £800, and it was now paying only £60. No house could have its annual value increased eightfold unless its annual value was £1,000 and is now paying £60. These are very exceptional instances, and the Committee must not consider that the average increase of duty is anything like that which one would gather if we did not carefully examine the speech of the hon. Member. I come to the particular scale which is now proposed as the considered alternative to the Government proposal. I would ask the special attention of the Committee to the proposal made from the opposite side of the House. Hon. Members opposite—I do not complain of it—have appointed a Committee of Members to draft and put down Amendments to these Schedules and this Amendment has been moved by the chairman of that committee, supported by other Members, and it is clearly the considered and deliberate proposal of the party opposite as to the right way of dealing with the liquor licence taxation of the present Budget. After long deliberations they put this scale on the Paper by way of Amendment. Whatever the consequences of this scale, it would actually lower, and considerably lower, the Licence Duties now payable and now being paid by more than half the public houses of England, by about two-thirds the public-houses of Scotland, and by 97 per cent. of the public-houses of Ireland. These Licence Duties have been paid ever since 1880—nearly 30 years—and now, when the State is in need of fresh revenue, hon. Members come forward with a proposal which will lower the taxation on these houses. The hon. Member for Salford who has just spoken, said that the proposals in our Budget are such as had never been proposed in relation to any industry in any civilised country.
  Mr. BELLOC: No; I said in our country.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As a matter of fact, this scale is 50 per cent. on the annual value, and it is now the scale of Licence Duties for the majority of public-houses in this country. A house of £20 for the last 30 years has been paying £11. If this Amendment were accepted that duty would be lowered at once from £11 to £6. The house with an annual value of £40 now pays £20, and will under this alternative scale pay £12.
  Mr. E. B. BARNARD: Is that the rental value?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is the annual value that has always been taken for the purpose of the Licence Duty. A house with the annual value of £40 now pays £20, and the Licence Duty will be under this scale £12. The house of £50 now pays £26, and under this scale it would pay £15 The house of £100 has been paying for the last 30 years £30, and if this Amendment were adopted it would be reduced to £27. Therefore by this scale they propose that the State should make a loss of £255,000, which is to be counterbalanced by a gain on the larger houses of £270,000, or a net increase of £23,000. How much is the gain on the larger houses? The hon. Member who spoke first to-day said that they always admitted that the larger houses should pay more, and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, practically declared that the present scale was indefensible, and ought to be increased on the larger houses, which could well afford it. On a £200 house the present duty is £35. What do hon. Members opposite propose to raise it to? To £45. There is the extent of the increase. A £700 house, which must, of course, be a very large public-house—some gin palace probably in one of the great industrial quarters of our great towns—now pays £60, and it is proposed to charge it £85. I think when the Committee considers carefully the nature of this alternative proposal they will agree with me that it is one of the most remarkable ever placed on the Paper for the consideration of this Committee. Hon. Members opposite have been clamouring for an increase of the Navy for years. They have been advocating old age pensions; they have moved Amendment after Amendment to increase the cost of old age pensions; they have urgently demanded relief for the local rates, and as a contribution towards it they now propose to lower the duties on the vast majority of the public-houses of the United Kingdom and on the rest to increase them so as to give a net increase of £23,000 to the deficit of £16,000,000. We always knew that the alliance between hon. Members opposite and the liquor trade was very close—political alliance I mean—but I am surprised that they consider it consistent with their public duty to make a proposal such as that which is now before us.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I am very much surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. I
  1862
  thought the first part of his speech would have been to defend the Government, but I am bound to say I am amazed to find, so far as I can discover, he has not spoken a word in defence of the Government and apparently he thought the best course to adopt was, when you have no ease, abuse the attorney for the other side. I submit that the proposals of the Government in this matter are really so extravagant, to say no more, that they stand in much need of some defence. I do not care whether the party funds come from the temperance party or not, but surely the spokesman of the Government on a matter affecting such a large section of the community, as do the proposals of these Schedules, ought to have something to say for them.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They were defended on the Clause.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: On the contrary, we were told on the Clause that the proper time to discuss them was on the Schedule, and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that it would be quite out of order to discuss these details on the Clause. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition carefully pointed out at the outset of the Debate that we could not go into detail as to the questions raised upon the Schedule. Accordingly now is the time to defend them, and now is the time for the right hon. Gentleman, who has not a single word to say in defence of them. He says, forsooth, that there is a political alliance between the party to which I have the honour to belong and the trade. I am not ashamed of that. It is an honest trade and a respectable trade, and a trade that ought to be treated by the Government with common honesty. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the scheme of taxation proposed by this scale submitted by my hon. Friend only gives £24,000 per year, let him remember that he is taxing a falling industry, and taxing an industry, moreover, and a business, moreover, which has suffered enormously since the 3s. 9d. was put on whisky by the present proposals. Everybody knows who has investigated the matter—and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly well aware of it—that the incomings of the publicans have suffered enormously since the increase on the Whisky Duty was imposed. I wish to give some concrete examples of what this taxation will result in, taken from Scotch instances which have been given to me—one or two instances of

  1863
  restaurants, which, to my knowledge, in Edinburgh and Glasgow, are of the very highest class, but which will not come in under any of the exemptions which Section 31 provides.
  Before I come to that, let me say that the business principle of this proposed scale is absolutely bad, and that there is no justification whatever for saying that you ought to tax public-houses according to their rental. It is perfectly well known that a house with a rental of £100 may sell less whisky than a house with a rental of £20 or £25. Anyone in the trade knows that, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it just as well as I do. Accordingly, you are putting a tax on the better class of house, and so high that you drive it out of business and encourage the worst class of house to continue. The information I have from those engaged in the business shows conclusively that the basis upon which this Schedule proceeds is fundamentally wrong, and calculated to work out injustice. Then may I say this from the Scotch standpoint—in Scotland, as there are practically no tied houses, the publicans there will not get the benefit under the section which deals with tied houses. The publican in Scotland is assessed very often not only on his rental, but on what he pays as a fine or for goodwill. I will give an instance. A gentleman writes to me to say that he paid for his house £4,250. That was for goodwill. He got a lease for 14½ years at a rent of £130. The assessors of the Scotch Valuation Office said to this gentleman, "The true value of these premises is not £130, because you paid £4,250 for the goodwill. The true value is twice £130, or £260." Accordingly he stands on the valuation roll at double his rental, and according to the scale of the Government he would have to pay a full additional rental in lieu of Licence Duty. That shows that in addition to having rated on the rack rent, you have put a rating also on the additional value due to the goodwill or fine paid on purchase.
  I was about to refer to two cases of high-class restaurants carrying on business, one in Glasgow and one in Edinburgh, high-class houses. Their present duty is £103. I do not dispute, of course, that there ought to be some increase, but I do dispute that any justification can be alleged for imposing upon that business a charge, instead of £103, a sum of £1,137. The manager writes to me that their total profits for the year were £870, and accord-
  1864
  ingly the Government proposed on this thoroughly respectable high-class business to exact £200, or £300 more than the total profit.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We charge on their compensation value.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: That may be in the future.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: What is the rateable value?
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: It must be over £2,000.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A house over £500 annual value has the right immediately to be charged on the basis of compensation value. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] We have discussed that so often; it will be taken on the amount of the liquor trade, and not in any degree on the rateable value, so that the hon. Member's figure of £1,000 is altogether foreign to the facts.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I give this as an instance of the very bad system of legislation of applying an English Act which we in Scotland know nothing about to Scotland. Those who write me say we do not understand anything about English compensation, and I confess I doubt if the right hon. Gentleman could specify what is compensation for a Scotch business. There is no machinery provided for it. Then, in one other case, the rent is £150, and it would be subject to the compensation value, but what that will turn out to be nobody can tell, and there the increase is £373. May I just point out that one of the results of this is that if you destroy this business you are going to add very largely to the number of the unemployed. I come to the public-houses proper, and I find there from the returns which I have got from 45, within a few minutes' walk of Glasgow Exchange, that the additional duty paid by those 45 people will be over £10,000.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: On annual value?
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Yes.: 32 public-houses, and 16 of them are restaurants, the proportion, therefore, of increase is enormous. Now, taking the whole of those houses again, it appears that the present total rental is £41,000, and the total duty is to be £20,000, as against £7,000. While I cannot give the details as to the public-houses and restaurants, in some

  1865
  cases it will mean double, treble, and up to seven, eight, and nine times what the duty was before, with the result that it is impossible that those businesses could exist. I venture to submit to the Government, in the first place, if this scale is persisted in, you will not get your money. You may kill the business, and the result will be that the high-class public-houses will disappear, and you will have the less reputable and respectable of them; and you will drive the customers either to the shebeen or the club or drinking at home. I confess I do not think any of those alternatives is a good alternative, and I venture to submit that so far as the Scotch trade is concerned it is a part of the Budget which will give effect to the Lord Advocate's swinging duties. I think it was meant to give effect to them; but the result will be to drive honest men out of the trade, to increase the ranks of the unemployed, and to do nothing to promote the pause of temperance.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: We have at last come to the real point of the licensing portion of the Bill, and I am glad that the Debate should have been initiated by the introduction of this alternative scale, and, above all, I am glad, in the interests of the party to which I belong, that it should have been met by the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy. When these duties were first proposed their extent and practical effect were not realised in the country at all. It has only been by very slow degrees that people outside the trade have realised what was really intended in the way of taxation of the liquor trade. This Debate will do a good deal to spread knowledge on that important matter, and the speech of the sole representative of the Government present will do more than any other speech could have done to illustrate to all fair-minded people outside the spirit in which this taxation has been imposed and is being maintained. I do not propose to deal with the speech made by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Belloc), for whose support we are very grateful, beyond saying that I am not quite sure that there is very much in the one argument, which was so eagerly grasped at by the Chancellor of the Duchy, founded upon monopoly. If he looks at the older licensing statutes he will see that the origin of our licensing law is not any notion of monopoly at all, but a notion that the provision of victualling houses in ample measure and under proper control is a national benefit. ["No."] Monopoly has
  1866
  come, as in a measure it must always come, when you get State control. You get it in the case of railways or anything else controlled by the State. But against monopoly you must set restriction. You must remember that the publican, although he may be in some measure protected against competition in a way that the butcher and the baker are not, carries on his business under perpetual, harassing, and hampering restrictions, whereas the butcher and the baker are their own masters. I am prepared to discuss this matter upon the ground stated by the hon. Member for Salford. He says, "You are taxing a monopoly." For the sake of argument I will admit that. He says, further, that it is a time of financial stress, and that everybody must be prepared to make a fair contribution. That also I accept, provided the contribution is fairly assessed as between one taxpayer and one interest and another. I base my support of this alternative Schedule upon three suggestions. The first is that it is demonstrable, and I think is being demonstrated, that the licensed trade can bear no more taxation than rests upon it at present. Quite apart from the question of justice, on the mere matter of fiscal expediency it can bear no more. Secondly, it can be demonstrated, at any rate, that it cannot bear any such burden of taxation as the Government propose to put upon it. Thirdly, notwithstanding the scathing comment of the Government upon this Schedule as a Schedule, with which I will deal in a moment, I submit that as a mere Schedule, apart from the amount altogether, and as a mere piece of machinery, it is an infinitely better Schedule than that proposed by the Government.
  I do not desire to deal at any great length with the proposition that the trade cannot bear, and can be seen to be unable to bear, any further taxation than now rests upon it. Since the duties were put on it in 1880, the taxation both of beer and of spirits has considerably increased, and the burden of the rates upon the publican has enormously increased. In addition to the impressive facts given by the Mover of the Amendment, I would point out that this trade is called upon to pay, and pays, 33 per cent. of its takings for rates and taxes. Monopoly or no monopoly, what other trade or interest is required to make any such contribution or anything approaching it to the public expenditure? That being the position of the trade, what is the kind of taxation proposed to be put upon it? A brewery was

  1867
  mentioned by my hon. Friend which has paid £30,000 a year, and has divided £60,000 a year among its ordinary shareholders. I should have thought that 10s., not for taxation generally, but for this particular tax, as against every £1 which goes to its ordinary shareholders, was a pretty fair proportion for any industry. But this brewery is to pay £120,000 a year for this duty alone. I say that that is impossible. Another brewery, which has paid £8,000, is now to pay £41,000. Careful local inquiries have been made in all parts of the country, urban and rural, and the figures—which, no doubt, are before many Members of the Committee—show increased Licence Duties, running up from 50 per cent. to over 300 per cent., in the case of public-houses; while, in the case of beerhouses, the addition is very much larger even than that. I have before me a list of 38 typical London houses of the larger kind—from £250 up to £1,600 a year annual value. They pay now £2,000 a year; they will pay £13,000. May I mention to the Committee instances, no doubt put forward as extreme instances, which were given at a meeting of free licence holders at Newcastle on July 6th? What do the Committee think of this as taxation proposed by the Government? One house, which pays £40 a year, and made a profit last year of £195, is to pay £175 for Licence Duty. Another, which pays £40 a year, and last year made a profit of £90, is to pay £175 Licence Duty. Another, which pays £60 a year, and last year made a profit of £302, is to pay £350 Licence Duty. Another, which pays £60 a year, and last year made a profit of £154, is to pay £500 Licence Duty. These amounts are in addition to all the other burdens—rates and taxes—at present resting on the trade. I doubt whether the Committee appreciate the immense pressure which this minimum scale will exercise upon the very smallest public-houses. In Norwich there are 416 licensed houses which will come within the minimum scale, and this is how they will be affected. All the following houses will in future pay £35 a year each, namely, 39 which now pay £25, 47 now paying £20, 91 now paying £17, 98 now paying £14, 95 now paying £11, and 46 now paying £8. I submit to any fair-minded business man that the imposition of a scale such as that means the immediate destruction of a very large proportion of those 416 houses.
  This is the scale to which we venture to put forward an alternative. Taxation such
  1868
  as this is not imposed with a single eye for revenue, nor for revenue at all. It is imposed with the repulsive mixture of malice and philanthropy, sanctimonious piety and rigorous oppression, which is exhibited in every speech made on Liberal platforms in reference to this portion of the Bill. When we venture to urge the cruel and crushing nature of this taxation, its general industrial effect, the enormous number of people it will throw out of employment, and its vast indirect results, instead of being met by reasonable arguments on the part of the Government, we are told that all this has been discussed long ago, that we are in alliance with the licensed trade, and that, cordially cheered, passes for argument in this Committee. The Chancellor of the Duchy said that the increased taxation which he selected, and which happened to be an increase of 33 per cent. upon the present burden, was perfectly derisory, and he tore the Schedule to pieces by making the one observation—an observation made by my hon. Friend in introducing it—that it proposes to reduce the present scale of duties on houses under £100, and to increase it on houses above £100, so that on the whole there will be a slight gain to the revenue. I am surprised that that proposal should be challenged or criticised. I should have thought it was common ground that all over the country the present scale bore somewhat hardly upon the very small houses. This scale proposes, without injustice to the trade and without loss to the revenue, to rectify what has been admitted to be a defect in the present scale—to ease the burden on the small publican and somewhat to increase it on the larger publican, so that the houses above £100 will pay more, the houses under £100 will pay less, and the revenue will gain £20,000 or £30,000 a year. I cannot for the life of me see why that scale should be first of all elaborately described as a laboured result of the toil of some mysterious committee and then be torn to pieces by merely pointing out that it is fair to the small man, and rectifies the balance by putting more on the bigger man. I submit that the Government's scheme of taxation on the trade is oppressive, and that one of its patent and admitted defects would be remedied by this alternative scale. The Government admit that they cannot continue their scale into the higher ranges. What do they propose to do? They attempt to meet that admitted inequality in a most clumsy and unscientific

  1869
  fashion by taking an arbitrary line of £700—Which they now propose to reduce to £500—and beyond that line not reducing nor mitigating their scale, but giving the publican a choice, if he pleases, of jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire. The Chancellor of the Duchy assumed with great courage on every occasion that this change of basis will be an advantage to the publican, and that he will pay less when he is put on compensation value than he has to pay on annual value. That will come before this Committee in a short time, and I think it may be that there will be some reason to think that this supposed concession is no concession at all; that the publican will be in no way better off on compensation value than he will be on annual value. However that may be, is it not better to have a regular graduated scale like this which is based upon some basis and principles throughout than to put people on one basis up to an arbitrary line, and to give them the option of another basis above that line? I venture to say that this scale that we submit to the Committee is both juster in its main lines and in its operations in respect to the trade than the impossible burden of taxation which the Government seeks to impose. It is also better for the trade, and it will remedy the grosser injustices in the Government scheme, with advantage to the trade and without any loss in the long run—but indeed with ultimate benefit—to the revenue.
  Mr. COURTENAY WARNER: I would not in any way vote for such a scheme as has been proposed in this Amendment, because I think it has been very clearly shown by the Chancellor of the Duchy that it is quite an impossible substitute for the Government proposal. The revenue must be got somewhere, and we must increase the amount of taxation. At the same time, I should like to make some sort of plea for some modification, if it is possible, of this rather severe taxation, because I am one of those who feel that the trade is very heavily taxed, and, like many others, I do not want to see any injustice done. Of course, where there is further taxation there are always hard cases, and cases that press very severely. Where the taxation is such a large increase as at present I think there may be a good many hard cases. At the same time, I cannot agree at all with the arguments used on the other side. The argument put forward by the Front Bench was that it was an injustice to take the rental. That is the
  1870
  foundation of the licensing which has been going on for years and years. This is merely the old system continued. And we have a promise from the Government that it is to be altered when they have time to do it—perhaps next year. So that I do not think the argument is a fair one against the proposal. It is an argument against the whole system which has been going on for years and years. The arguments which have been put forward are almost all of them arguments that there should be no taxation at all. We cannot, knowing that money has to be raised—and nobody can—agree to such arguments as those. I must say that I cannot vote in any way for the proposals of the Opposition, nor for the suggestion of my hon. Friend behind me, though he recognises some of the facts that are patent and clear to all of us. At the same time, I hope the Chancellor will still have something to spare to relieve, certainly the small or the medium houses, so as to give some alleviation of this rather heavy increase of taxation. I certainly could not vote against the Government on a detail like this of the Budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, it is a detail in view of the vastly more important parts of the Budget that hon. Gentlemen opposite have spent most of their time in opposing, and which are, I think, of more importance to the benefit of the country.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I rise for the purpose of asking a question, not of making a statement; because when I make a statement it is immediately challenged by the Government. I will therefore proceed by the Socratic method with what I have to say. When the House was in Committee, I ventured to express my indebtedness to the Chairman for bringing out a fact that had not heretofore been plainly stated; that the words "annual value" in the Clause affected the three Kingdoms. We then asked whether the Prime Minister was to be so understood when he stated, as we believed, that "annual value" was to be dealt with in Ireland according to Griffith's valuation. Both in the Clause and in the Amendment which we asked leave to move, the words "annual value" are the words employed. I now want to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy whether he adheres to his statement made upon September 3rd, 1909, that the words "annual value" only applied to Sub-section (1) of Clause 30, and whether the Prime Minister's words were or were not to be taken as governing Subsection (2) of the Clause? That is what

  1871
  he stated, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT, and according to all our recollections. If we are going to discuss this particular Schedule, which is what we were referred to when we were discussing the Clause, we are entitled to ask what is the meaning of the words "annual value" in the Schedule? That is a most important question. Controversy has existed upon it. I do not want to recall any unpleasant topic, but I do think we are entitled to know whether in this Schedule which the Government are proposing for the three Kingdoms they adhere to the declaration of the Chancellor of the Duchy made in Committee, that the words "annual value" of licensed premises—which are in the first portion of Schedule C—refers to a new method of valuation in Ireland, or does it refer, as we had hoped and believed from the Prime Minister's statement a day or two before—and as we were entitled to hope—that these words would continue to be understood in the sense of Griffith's valuation?
  The words of the right hon. Gentleman are, of course, of great importance. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 10, No. 133, col. 784]:—
  "The effect of this Sub-section (1), coupled with the Schednle-if the hon. and learned Member will examine the Bill he will find I am correct—will he to repeal that provision of the Act of 1880 which applies to Ireland a different basis of assessment for public-houses from that which is adopted now in England. That was very strongly objected to by the Irish Members, and the Prime Minister said he would not insist upon that provision in Ireland, and he consequently accepted an Amendment to that effect. Sub-section (2) is an entirely independent matter, and was not referred to by the Prime Minister in the undertaking he gave. I quite agree that in Ireland there may be special difficulties, not on the ground raised by the hon. and learned Member, but on the ground that so many of the premises there are mixed premises, and it would be a matter of some difficulty to assess what is their present value under a clause of this kind."
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Samuel Evans): If I gather aright from the passage which the hon. Gentleman read it says that Sub-section (2) is an entirely different matter to Sub-section (1). That clearly is so, because the second Sub-section of Clause 30 merely provides for new valuation for the purposes of the Register. It is perfectly clear that the valuation for Ireland for the purpose of assessing the duties under the new Schedule will be exactly the same as the valuation is now—precisely the same. I need not remind the Committee of the words which we put into the Clause. The portion is italicised. That effect, so far as Ireland is concerned, is that there is absolutely no difference whatever in the method of ascertaining the
  1872
  valuation of licensed premises for the purposes of these duties and ascertaining the valuation for the purposes of the existing licence duties.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has carefully abstained from answering my question. Sub-section (1) does not apply to public-houses at all. It simply declares that the valuation for other purposes shall be the valuation of the public-house—whatever that is. It is Sub-section (2) that deals with public-houses.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is entirely wrong.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Well, can you give an answer to my question, which I put this way: Am I right in construing the Prime Minister's statement—his meaning—that the valuation of public-houses in Ireland will continue for all purposes—I am not dealing with any new Bill which may or may not be introduced—but is it the intention of the Government that the annual value for public-houses in Ireland shall continue to be calculated upon Griffith's valuation?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The point which we are dealing with is whether or not there is to be any different valuation of licensed premises in Ireland for the purposes of these new duties.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman carefully abstains from answering my question.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: That is not very polite, nor is it accurate.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I have answered the question, and will answer it again. The present valuation of premises in Ireland for the purpose of the present duty will be exactly the same as for the purposes of the new duties under the Schedule. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very positive statement.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have made none. I have only asked questions.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to Sub-section (1) of Clause 30, and said that it had nothing to do with public-houses at all. Let me read it for the purpose of showing how wrong the hon. and learned Member is, and for the purpose of reminding the

  1873
  Committee of the Amendment which we accepted to that Sub-section when we were dealing with it. "The annual value of any premises"—this is the Clause which the hon. and learned Member says has nothing to do with public-houses—"for the purposes of any duty charged in the First Schedule to this Act shall be determined in the same manner, and subject to the same conditions (including as respects licensed premises in Ireland the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 43 of the Inland Revenue Act of 1880) as the annual value of the premises is determined for the purpose of a publican's licence, and in the determination of that value the duty on the licence is not to be allowed as a deduction." Yet the hon. and learned Member says that this Clause has nothing to do with public-houses.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman again to answer my question? It is a plain question, and it can be answered "Yes" or "No." Does the Government propose that public-houses in Ireland shall continue to be valued on the present system of Griffith's valuation?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: It is not Griffith's valuation. It is Griffith's valuation plus 20 per cent.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Under the Act of 1880?
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: If I left out the 20 per cent. the hon. and learned Member would catch me up, and he would have said I deliberately abstained from answering his question. The answer is perfectly clear, and it is that the method of valuation that exists in Ireland now will continue to exist for calculating the duties specified in the Schedule to this Bill.
  Mr. E. A. GOULDING: I desire to add a few words of protest against the proposals of the Government in regard to these new duties. They are to my mind so grossly excessive as to be calculated to cause ruin to many deserving citizens. They will necessarily break up homes, and they will add largely to the unemployment which already exists in this country. Eight through this Debate the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this part of the Bill seems to have forgotten altogether the basis upon which these rates of taxation and licences are levied. Every man, who knows anything about these matters admits that the present basis is
  1874
  defective, and does a great deal of injustice. No doubt during the 100 years during which the present basis has been in force, custom and usage and the goodwill and determination of the bench of magistrates and the trade, have adapted that basis so as to minimise hardships, but when you come to enormously increased duties based upon that basis the inevitable result will be that this grievance will be enhanced and will become so oppressive as to be absolutely destructive to the individuals who have to pay. It must necessarily mean the closing of houses, but that difficulty in regard to public-houses is not the only one and stands not by itself. The Committee will recollect that during the last 12 years the rates on all sorts of property throughout the country have enormously increased, but in regard to the trade alone it has meant more than £2,000,000 a year. If you assume that taking £100 worth of property belonging to an ordinary trader and £100 worth of property belong to the licensed trade, the increase of rates on the ordinary trader's property has amounted to 48 per cent., while the increase of rates upon the licensed property is not less than 89 per cent. That is an enormous disparagement between the rates as borne by those who are holders of licensed property in this country, and it is so extravagant as not to escape the condemnation of all reasonable and just-minded men. But that is not all. The proposed increased duties which you are placing on this trade are deliberately put upon a trade which is well known to be failing. The consumption of liquor is decreasing, and is lessening by reason of the change in the habits of the people, who are spending their money in other directions than on liquor. Therefore, to this extent, the necessary result must be that some of these licensed houses will be inevitably crushed out. Not only do I consider that harsh and tyrannical, but—and I use the word measuredly—it is simply dishonest. It is dishonest, because the late Government in the Act of 1904 gave to the owners of these licences and of this licensed property little less than a freehold in that property. Further than that, this Liberal Government acknowledged that property of the trade, and in their proposals which they brought in last December the Government recognised the rights of the trade by saying that for 14 years they would give them a time limit, and they even went so far as to say that they were prepared to bargain with them for a further period of extension of that limit. The action of the Government in now

  1875
  bringing forward these proposals, which will have the tendency to crush out that particular trade or property, is, to my mind, absolutely dishonest. These duties are so excessive that they must inevitably have this dishonest effect. Take the case of the small man, and not the big man, and it is then that one realises what a change these duties are going to impose. Take a house of £100 valuation. At present they pay £30 duty, and that duty will be increased to £60. The duty in the case of a house of £200 is going to be increased from £35 to £112 10s., and the house of £400 paying £45 is going to be increased from £45 to £222 10s. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where did you get those figures?"]
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The new duty is to be half the annual value.
  Mr. GOULDING: I am taking half the annual value. I am talking of a house the value of which is £100. I say where the value is £100 the duty is to be half the annual value, which is £50 plus the extra amount put on for the value of the licence, which is not to be deducted. If you take £200, the Licence Duty was £35. You have half of that, to which you add the value of the licence, which is not deducted.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no such addition.
  Mr. GOULDING: Then I wish the right hon. Gentleman had been more explicit when dealing in Clause 30, and in explaining what were the additional words put in which are taken into consideration when assessing the value, but even if the addition is not to be taken into consideration, the increase of the £30 duty is to be to £60, in the £40 duty to £112, and in the £45 duty to over £200. I ask any hon. Member what he would think if his rates on his house were to be increased by such an exorbitant amount as that? No man would tolerate it. It is a gross piece of tyranny; it is intended to crush the licensed man out, and to give no possible chance to licence holders. To my mind this tax, being such as it is, it can only mean prohibition and the actual closing down of public-houses in several cases, and that, to my thinking, is dishonest. No words and no explanation could remove from the mind of a man who has lived in and worked his public-house for years when he finds that that house is closed down,
  1876
  and when he finds himself driven out amongst the unemployed, the idea that such an act is a dishonest act. The Government by calling this a tax on licences have not got over the difficulty connected with the question. To my mind a tax does not become less unjust by calling it a licence duty, but, true to their Free Trade principles, they put what is nothing else than a tax upon home industry while they put no duty upon the beer coming in from abroad, which is a countervailing duty to enable the foreign importer to compete with the home producer in our home markets. The Government hope to gain revenue from this taxation, but I maintain they will not gain revenue from it. To the working man a glass of beer and a pipe of tobacco are to be regarded as among the necessaries of life. Just as some people require their cup of tea, so the ordinary working man looks upon his glass of beer and the smoke of his pipe as necessaries of life, and we have to consider their standard of living, and not to look forward to setting up a standard of living for them such as prevails in puritanical homes. You have to take the standard of life which exists in the homes of the working classes, and when you give them the opportunity they will show at the polls what they think of your idea of their domestic life. I do not believe that these proposals will even advance temperance, because men will not have their free will, their customs, and their habits changed in this manner. You cannot alter the habits of a free people in this way. They are accustomed to these things, and they are determined to have them. A working man who cannot get these things which are his daily commodity will neither do his work well nor be a pleasant man to live with at home. The result will be that many of the working classes, instead of denying themselves some of their beer and tobacco which they consume now, will, when that beer and tobacco becomes dearer under your proposals, spend more upon it, with the inevitable result that the family will be deprived of some of the necessaries of life, and will have to exist on a reduced standard of comfort in their homes. It is because I believe that by these proposals you are deliberately making one law for the rich and another for the poor, and at the same time imposing burdens on the working classes, that I oppose this Clause with all my heart. I venture to predict that the party opposite will rue the day they attempted to act according to the

  1877
  dictates of those tyrannical people who sit at their backs and supply the sinews of war to their party chests.
  Mr. A. J. SHERWELL: I wish to enter my protest against the innuendoes which have become extremely common on the other side of the House, and which are as offensive as they are ill-founded. When I find hon. Members opposite who are directly and financially interested in the great brewing industry rising one after another in their places to indict this particular scheme of taxation I am conscious of no shock to my own mind. I do not suggest that it is inappropriate that hon. Members opposite should discuss this class of taxation, but may I say that I know of no hon. Member on this side of the House who, in his advocacy of temperance and licensing reform, from the point of view of financial interest, has not suffered because of that advocacy. I hope in the further discussion of this question that we may at least be free from those offensive innuendoes which have formed too prominent a feature in our discussions so far. In reference to the merits of this particular controversy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson) made a very strong point in his indictment of this Schedule of the fact that he had heard no defence from the Government of the principle adopted in this scale. The right hon. Gentleman when he made that remark could not have listened attentively to the speech to which he was then replying, nor could he have had in mind the very detailed and lengthy discussion of this particular class of taxation to which we have been accustomed during the last few weeks. I plead guilty to having spoken for one hour during the Committee stage of this Bill in defence of this particular scale of taxation. I do not now propose to repeat the arguments which I used on that occasion, but whatever may be the merits or demerits of the line of argument adopted on this side of the House it is not true to suggest that no attempt has been made to defend this scale. When one comes to analyse the real gravity and weight of the indictment levelled against this Schedule, one is very much struck with the fact that practically the whole of the indictment is based upon exceptional cases. The hardship of those cases I have already freely recognised and pointed out.
  If the instances which are so much emphasised by hon. Members opposite in-
  1878
  cluded any substantial proportion of the whole of the licences with which we are dealing one could understand the emphasis given to this particular argument. As a matter of fact the overwhelming number of houses are not of the dimensions nor of the high values suggested in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. One-half of the public-houses proper in England and Wales are less than £50 annual value; in Scotland 40 per cent. are under £50, and in the case of Ireland 95 per cent. of all the public-houses are also less than £50 annual value. So far as the large houses are concerned the proportion they represent of the total is numerically insignificant. The houses above £500 in England and Wales represent only 3 per cent. of all the public-houses in the country; in Scotland the houses of £500 annual value and upwards constitute less than 1 per cent. of all the public-houses in Scotland; and the houses of £500 and upwards annual value in Ireland cannot be expressed either in decimals or in fractions. In Ireland there are only six public-houses out of 17,000 which have an annual value of over £500. I think it is desirable, in a discussion of this kind, that some sense of proportion should be preserved in the distribution of the emphasis upon the various points of the indictment. I do not suggest that because the cases of hardship and of high rateable value are few that, therefore, they are a negligible quantity; on the contrary, I have pointed out from the beginning of these discussions that the adoption of a uniform percentage of 50 per cent. is unfair; but I am bound to say that the Government have gone a very considerable way to meet this hardship—in fact they have gone further than I suggested in a speech many weeks ago to remove cases of great severity by adopting an alternative in the case of public-houses of over £500 annual value. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow has quoted a number of Scotch cases, and he has based his argument upon the assumption of a uniform application of the 50 per cent. principle. I think the supporters of the Government have a perfect right to ask that when the incidence of this Schedule of taxation is discussed in this House some proper allowance should be made for the alternative option which the Government offer. The right hon. Gentleman said there is no annual compensation value in existence in Scotland or Ireland. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not suggest to his licensed victualler friends for one

  1879
  moment that the essential principle of the annual compensation value, namely, the amount of trade done in the house, and the profits on that trade are not ascertainable quantities in the case of Scotland as in the case of England. Therefore, when we have figures of such weight and importance levelled at our heads as those which the right hon. Gentleman levelled this afternoon, we may fairly ask, in justice to the Government and in justice to those who defend this scheme, that in those estimates allowance should be made for the fact that alternative proposals are contained in the Government Bill. As I have several times pointed out, there are sure to be cases of hardship if you press this uniform scale right up and apply it to the higher values, but those who indict this Schedule on that ground ignore the distinct pledge and promise which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in his Budget speech that this 50 per cent. principle is provisional for this year only, and that when a new valuation takes place, if it is found that 50 per cent. is excessive, it will be reduced. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] When the valuation is made, for then the particulars of the valuation will be in possession of hon. Members of this House.
  But, after all, the defects in the scheme are defects which concern what is numerically a very small proportion of the total number of public-houses in the Kingdom. I do not think you will find a single responsible representative of the brewing trade of the country who will admit that the aggregate burden which the Government propose to lay upon the trade is excessive, having regard to the exceptional character of the national needs. I have discussed this matter with many influential representatives of the brewing trade outside this House, and I have never met a single influential person who, in view of our exceptional financial need, admits that the amount the Government proposes to get by these taxes is excessive. Where they quarrel is in regard to the methods of distribution. But defects are inherent in any system where the basis is rental | or annual value which for the time being is accepted by the Government. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow indicts the Government because they base their Schedule on rental value, may I remind him that it is not for Members of his party to bring that as an indictment against the present Government, because the Leader of the
  1880
  Opposition, who, in 1904, proposed the compensation levy, deliberately accepted rental value as the basis of the compensation levy, and that basis is far more inequitable in its incidence in that instance than it is in the case of the Licence Duty. Therefore it comes with very ill grace from the right hon. Gentleman opposite to indict the Government for adopting a basis of taxation which has now been in force for over a century. I do not believe you will ever get rid of the anomalies in your licence taxation scale until you directly lay your taxation upon the actual amount of the trade done. As an humble individual I have done my best to enforce this doctrine from time to time. I hope that when the Government reconstruct their scheme of taxation—as I understand they propose to do alter the first year—when the new valuation is adopted and a new basis is being set up, they will endeavour to get rid of all these inequalities and anomalies in the only way which is possible, namely, by adjusting the weight of the taxation to the actual value of the trade done.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: The hon. Gentleman opposite has made a very interesting speech, and there is no one in this House better acquainted with the facts than he is. There is, however, one important consideration which I think he has omitted to take into account, and it is, that whilst claiming for the Government some credit for the optional value which they are proposing to work upon after a year's time—and I think I may claim some credit for myself in that respect—he has forgotten to state that the Government have not yet placed us in possession of the information they are working upon, and we have not the slightest notion as to how that value is to be expressed or arrived at. We know the basis of valuation laid down in the Kennedy judgment and we know what it includes. We know also how compensation value is arrived at, but I have not yet heard how it is to be determined in the case of annual value. No one knows what the Government propose to do. I suppose they will proceed by Treasury Rules, but we ought to have those rules before us when we are dealing with this Schedule. We are proposing that 50 per cent. of the gross annual value shall be charged, at all events for the first year, upon every licence holder in England and Scotland, with the Griffith's valuation in Ireland plus 20 per cent. This is to be the basis, and

  1881
  yet we have not the slightest idea what relation that 50 per cent. bears to the ultimate annual compensation value. The lack of that information makes it extremely difficult to discuss this question, and it makes it particularly difficult to realise what the position of the large houses will be when that compensation value is arrived at. I am glad the hon. Gentleman stated that he had no desire to take more than a fair share out of the trade, and that he would apportion the charge to the compensation annual value so that it should not take out more than he mentioned in his speech. It seems to me, however, that we are left in complete ignorance as to what the percentage will be. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy), I do not think the Solicitor-General can have put the House in possession of the exact facts of the case. His reply, so far as it went, was accurate. Griffith's valuation, with 20 per cent. added, will be the basis for rating the Irish publican during the first year the Bill becomes an Act, but it will not be the basis in future years.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The question was put to me as to what would be the basis in Ireland for the purposes of these new duties.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I have no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood the hon. Member, but I listened most carefully, and he wanted to know how long the basis was going to continue. Was it to be a perpetual basis or not? He wanted to fasten on the Government the charge that, whilst they are for the first year continuing the existing system, which is a beneficial system for Ireland, they do not propose in the future to assess them in Ireland on any other basis than that of England and Scotland. They are going to level up the whole, and Ireland will have to pay much more—
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: They cannot do it without another Act of Parliament.
  Mr. YOUNGER: That is perfectly true, and there are such things as deals with the Irish party, and no doubt the hon. Member thinks he will be able to make the same deal in the new valuation as the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) has made on the present one. That, however, has nothing to do with the question. If the hon. Member will look at Clause 30, Subsection (2), he will see that the Act of Parliament will be brought in to fix the
  1882
  percentage you will have to pay, and, if Irishmen are able to get a lower percentage applied to their compensation value than we are, then it will not be very creditable to the Government. I do not propose to go into the question of on-licences, because I think that matter has been fully discussed. I disagree entirely with the fairness of the scale. I think it is a punitive scale. I do not doubt that many houses will be closed under an exceptional scale of this kind. I rather think the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that that will be the probable result It must be remembered that this scale not only deals with public-houses, but also with hotels and restaurants. This taxation, with the exception in Clause 31, covers the cases of hotels and restaurants, and, although there are modifications offered to them by that Clause, it is impossible to make out how the compensation value will be arrived at any more than one can tell how it will be arrived at in Scotland, and it is very difficult to know on what basis they will pay. A very powerful speech was made on behalf of the generous treatment of hotels by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover-square (Mr. Lyttelton), and, in reply, the Prime Minister said:—
  "I do not deny that hotels are a great public convenience, that they have the incidental advantage to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and that they promote the amenities of social life, facilitate traffic, and induce foreigners to come to our shores; and provide a great deal of employment. That is not the question. The question is, do our proposals tax them excessively?"
  No one would say a hotel paying £20 a year was excessively taxed, but what you have to consider is the total burden of taxation hotels have to bear, and not the mere Licence Duty. The supply of drink in a hotel is a mere auxiliary to business. They are obliged to supply drink or people will not come. The enormous commercial advantages we have gained by hotels in this country are overlooked, as is also the manner in which hotels are treated abroad compared with the manner with which they are treated in this country. I desire to bring to the notice of the Committee one or two figures which are interesting, and which will show what businesslike people like the Germans do in comparison with the action of doctrinaires opposite. In Germany they regard hotels as an essential element in the development and progress of their country. They therefore relieve them very largely of local taxation by taxing them as private houses. They place upon them the smallest

  1883
  Licence Duty, and do everything they can to encourage them, not only to increase their accommodation and their size, but also to put up travellers at the lowest posible prices. I am not going to deal with local hotels here, but I should like to give the Committee a very interesting instance of the difference between taxation on an important German hotel and the taxation on an hotel in England. I shall be very glad to give the names of the hotels to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if he desires to have them, but I do not wish to state them publicly. An hotel of 115 rooms in a Bavarian city is taxed locally and Imperially for Licence Duty and everything else at £233 per annum, whilst an hotel in Leeds, with practically the same number of rooms, is taxed at £1,851 per annum, and upon that burden the Government propose by the present Bill to add £426, making £2,300 of taxation per annum, instead of £233, as in Germany. There is also a large English hotel, the taxation of which is £9,000 a year including the new Licence Duty. There are two hotels in Switzerland extremely well known to everybody, which together provide more accommodation than the English hotel, and the total taxation on them for all purposes is 20,000 francs a year, or £800 in our money.
  It is notorious that the railway hotels of this country have been the means of bringing enormous numbers of people, enormous sums of money, and enormous orders to this country. I was told the other day of a striking case by the manager of the Midland Hotel, Manchester, which is one of the best known hotels in this country. A Mexican gentleman who used to come to the Savoy, London, go to Manchester and buy £4,000 or £5,000 worth of goods, and then go on to Berlin to complete his orders, found the Midland Hotel at Manchester so extremely comfortable that, instead of coming to the Savoy, he now goes direct to the Midland Hotel, and remains in Manchester a considerable time, buying £120,000 worth of goods there, and not buying any goods in Berlin at all. The attractions of the Midland Hotel have proved so great that he buys all his goods in Manchester. I mention that as evidence of the advantages which these hotels bring to the country, and I am astounded that the Government should endeavour to punish, as they are certainly punishing, hotels of that class. They ought to be encouraged and not discouraged. The whole scale is so excessive
  1884
  and so harsh that I am bound to say it is almost impossible to believe that the Government have not other and more sinister motives. They certainly cannot be doing it to get revenue, because they have already had experience of the effect of taxation on the trade, and, while at first they may get increased revenue, I am afraid in the end they will fail.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: The matter has been discussed over and over again, and it is no use going into the general case for imposing some higher tax upon the monopoly value of the richer class of houses or of putting some extra burden upon the gin palaces of the great cities, but the whole attack from the other side of the House has been really concentrated on cases of the highest duties which have been put forward, and I do not think it has yet been recognised how far the concessions of the Government and the modifications which have been made in the previous Sections really ease the burdens on these higher class houses. That is the one point to which I wish to direct attention. One hon. Member opposite disclaimed the fact that there was any alliance between his side of the House and the liquor trade. There must be some debating alliance between the liquor trade and the lawyers in the House, because I find most of the instances given on the other side come from the brief which has been very naturally compiled for the use and service of hon. Members opposite. It has been very extensively quoted. I do not complain about it, because it is very convenient to have people to supply you with ammunition, but these cases have been quoted without the qualifications used in the brief. I find on page 69 the very cases of on-licence holders of Newcastle, and what hon. Members have been careful not to quote are the qualifications on page 64. It is there stated that whilst the figures show the situation clearly they are subject to certain qualifications, and do not take into consideration the optional alternative method of assessment of houses of over £700 in value. Then I turn to the 38 London houses, and I find no less than 28 of them are houses of over £500 annual value. These hard cases, therefore, are really being met to a very large extent by the introduction of the concession applicable to houses of over £500. In the case of the Newcastle houses you are given the annual profit, but you are not given the full particulars on which it is possible for me to calculate the annual compensation

  1885
  value. I can only form an estimate. I have had a good deal of practice in that, having seen compensation granted in at least 100 cases, and I am therefore able to form a tolerably fair estimate as to what the Licence Duty on the annual compensation value would be.
  Mr. YOUNGER: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he manages to turn it into annual value?
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I do not think there is any real difficulty in finding out the annual compensation value of a house, seeing that the compensation value is capitalised on the ordinary number of years' purchase.
  Mr. YOUNGER: What percentage do you take?
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I cannot give you the definite figures. I can only give the maximum, which cannot possibly be, on even the most liberal scale, exceeded. Take the case of the house with a gross assessment of £1,000. The proposed licence is £500, but, according to the case quoted here, the profits are such that on the basis of annual value it is really impossible that it should be paying more than £100 at the outside. Thus they have multiplied the Licence Duty by five. I will take the case next of two hotels for which I have the trading figures. The annual value of these houses is in one case £735 and in the other £310. According to the figures put forward on the other side, based on the 50 per cent. annual value, the Licence Duty in one case would be £307 10s. and in the other case £155. I have worked out these two cases. I find the percentage of liquor sold is so very small that the new duty in the first case could not possibly be more than £24 10s., and in the second case it could not be more than 10 guineas. I admit that if you take 50 per cent. annual value the whole way up you will get, above the £500 limit, into a region where the duties are not applicable at all; but I say that the Government has, by the concessions it has made, really provided a remedy. When you come to look into the matter you find that the Licence Duty in nearly all these cases has been quoted on the authority of the "liquor brief," which itself admits that these excessive cases of Licence Duty are not really applicable, and should not be taken into account. I hope that in future we shall hear very little about them. Hon.
  1886
  Members have said, "You will crush down these houses." I do not believe you will, because the principle of this 50 per cent. annual value is at present often exceeded in the case of smaller houses, and if these will not be crushed out you certainly will not do it in the other cases. In the case of houses under £50 you are already taking 55, 56, and even 57 per cent. of the annual value, and it cannot be suggested that there is anything in these duties which will wipe out the small class of houses. Again, it is said you will cause unemployment. I think the liquor trade is a greater cause of unemployment in this country than probably anything else, and anything which will restrict what the Leader of the Opposition has called "the great and ever-present tragedy of drink" must create employment, and not cause unemployment. I wish hon. Members to remember a Return which was given us last year, and which showed that, under the existing working of the tied house system we had no fewer than 16,000 transfers every year. This means that with the present working of that system, in the case of something like 90,000 tied houses you turn out every year 16,000 of the tenants. There is a constant flow of tenants from one house to another, and it would be a benefit to all if the trade could be put in this respect on a better basis. At any rate I believe as a result there would be less unemployment in the trade itself.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) began his speech, which, like all his speeches, was interesting, instructive, and moderate in tone, by making a very undeserved charge against my Friends on this side of the House. My hon. Friends are said to have accused Ministerialists of being politically assisted with funds by ardent, and even fanatical, teetotallers. Well, he deprecated such suggestions being thrown out either on one side or the other, by individuals or by bodies, who had special interests—sentimental or financial—in one direction or another, in legislation. I thought that was a most extraordinary charge to make, because the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had accused us, not half an hour before the hon. Gentleman spoke, of being in political alliance with the trade. That is an allegation constantly made and always cheered by Ministerialists. But I think it was the hon. Member for South Salford

  1887
  who first spoke of the subventions of the cocoa manufacturers to Liberal Governments, and suggested that they would cease if the Government abandoned its present policy of temperance reform.
  Mr. BELLOC: I said nothing about cocoa manufacturers. My point was that if you could have an audit of party funds you would see a very large proportion of those who support the Liberal Government were fanatical teetotallers.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I understood the hon. Gentleman's observations to apply to the cocoa manufacturers. I take it now that he absolves them. It was not my intention to drag them in. I deprecate this interchange of charges. But let me say that the offenders in this respect are not those who sit on this side of the House. Within these walls and in the country and on every platform it is hon. Gentlemen opposite who make these charges, and it ill becomes them to read us lessons on this subject.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I never did so.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman said that we were in political alliance with the trade.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I must really repudiate any suggestion that what I said was in the least comparable with what fell from the hon. Member for Salford, and when the hon. Member made an observation across the floor of the House with regard to party funds, I immediately said I made no such accusation, and that I was speaking really of political alliances wholly irrespective of financial considerations.
  Mr. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the charge he did make was of a much less severe character than that made against his own party by the hon. Member for Salford, I will not argue it with him. But I think the charges were on a par.
  Mr. SHERWELL: We have had the admission of the right hon. Gentleman who sits for Central Glasgow of a political alliance with the trade.
  Mr. BALFOUR: In what my right hon. Friend said I entirely concur. He said that if individuals were tyrannically used by any party in this House—if they were tyrannically used by hon. Gentlemen opposite—they were the persons in whose in-
  1888
  terests we should uplift our voices, and whose interests, moreover, we should try to safeguard against unjust attacks. I quite agree the whole point is: Is this an unjust attack or not? If it is an unjust attack, then I am proud to be one of those who are doing their best to repel it. I am not ashamed of anything I have said or that I am going to say, or that I may be likely to say at any future period on this point. If this be an unjust attack upon a legitimate trade, I am glad to be one of its defenders. The whole point we have to determine is whether this is or not an unjust attack, and I say that, on the showing of hon. Gentlemen who have lifted up their voices in favour of this scale of duties, it is an unjust attack. I do not count among those who lifted up their voices in favour of the scale the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, for he said nothing in defence of the scale. That was a part of the case which he very carefully put on one side. But the hon. Member for Huddersfield did say something in support of the scale. His defence was that if it proved to be unjust in practice, the Government were pledged to alter it. That is the most amazing defence of a Budget proposal I ever heard. It is the only defence which has so far been made, because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln, who last spoke, declared that the only part of the scale in which this tax operated unjustly was the higher part of the scale, and that, as regards the higher part of the scale, the injustice was adequately met by the provisions which the Government had put forward for introducing a different method of assessment. I have two answers to that defence. One is that the injustice is not confined to the higher part of the scale, and that even as far as the houses comprised in that part of the scale are concerned, there is really no adequate satisfaction to be derived from the alternative method which may be used. Is not one of the most fundamental canons of our taxation this: That when a man is heavily taxed, he should know what the tax is likely to amount to? I do not believe that anybody in England knows what the tax is likely to be if estimated on the alternative plan of the Government—the plan which is based on the compensation value. If the holders of licences in England are ignorant of the principle on which they are to be taxed, what about the holders of licences in Scotland and Ireland? I know that in Ireland the number of houses over £500 is not very great, but in Scotland it

  1889
  is, and probably, at this moment, the owners of these have not the smallest conception of what taxation is going to be levied upon them. That is not the thing of which we originally complained. I am now dealing with the remedy, and, if you can make that criticism of the remedy, what can be said in regard to the general complaint? How are we to gauge their sense of justice towards this particular industry? I do not think anything can be added to the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Ayr Burghs upon the policy of not extending every kind of favour to those great hotels which do as much for certain classes of our international business as almost anything you could imagine. I do not think the Government have shown very great perception to that change. How are we going to get a sense of justice to this industry? When you consider the speeches and their Amendments to the Bill, no very great consideration has been shown to those institutions which are absolutely of international importance. As to the injustice, I quite agree gross cases of hardship are perhaps rather to be found amongst the restaurants and amongst the public-houses and beerhouses. It is really folly to say that the hardships of this tax are either remedied by the new system of assessment or confined to the central part of the scale. Just let me remind the House of how that stands. It seems, according to the table from which I am quoting, and which I believe is authentic, that from houses between £100 and £200 annual value £314,000 are now collected. Under this new duty £786,000 will be collected. Those are houses not at the top of the scale. Those are houses which get no relief from the flew system of assessment. Those are houses of the moderate type which I should suppose Gentlemen in this House regard as the very class they are entitled to see preserved. No man can tell me that it is not an enormous taxation upon a legitimate business. I agree with what fell from the Member for Salford that it would be a gross and unjust tax to the whole community. If this was a neutral trade, if it was concerned with the manufacture of cloth or pig iron, everybody would say it is intolerable, and it is oppressive in the highest degree, and no argument about monopolies created by the State would ever convince the ordinary member of the public that a monstrous fiscal injustice is not being done. If people are blind to that injustice it is wholly and solely be-
  1890
  cause the moral question intervenes—this national and most legitimate desire to increase the sobriety of the people. They are dazzled, as it were, by that idea, and lose all conception and sense of the ordinary equities of ordinary life. I cannot believe that that is right. I think it is discreditable to our whole legislative system that such a thing should be tolerated. Let it be remembered that when we talk of the effect of this taxation upon the smaller houses we are only repeating what the Prime Minister himself has said. In saying he did not believe that any houses would be squeezed out by this tax the hon. Member for Lincoln directly contradicted the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister anticipated that the result of this taxation would be to destroy the living of many of those persons who now carry on this trade. On that anticipation the right hon. Gentleman based the fiscal prophecy that the yield of this tax would diminish in future years. In face of that it is futile for hon. Members to say they do not now believe and hope that the effect of this method of raising revenue for "Dreadnoughts" is to destroy the living of a large number of men. Even those who, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield, are prepared to give a very qualified defence to this proposal, surely forget how serious must the injury be in the course of the very first year to those houses below £500, in the case of which no escape is possible under this Bill. The Government contemplate, the Member for Huddersfield contemplates, and I daresay other Members in the House contemplate, that experience may prove after a year that the scale under this Bill is iniquitous in its magnitude. Then they said they would alter it. Very good; but how about the people who have paid this iniquitous tax in the meantime? To many of them it must mean ruin, to many others it must mean borrowing money which would hang like a millstone round their neck, injure their wives and families, hamper them in their business, and embitter their lives. Does any Gentleman laugh at that picture, or think it is exaggerated? It is certainly not ludicrous, and I am not conscious that I have exaggerated it. I do not believe I have exaggerated. I think that is the effect of what will occur in a great many cases. Can the Committee forget that at the very moment when they are throwing this enormous burden upon a particular class of traders they are really doing practically nothing to interfere with those who are

  1891
  rival traders in the same kind of commodity either at home or abroad? I am not going to argue how far this tax on licences is going to be thrown upon the public in the form of increased cost of beer. I understand that the Government have been quite inconsistent on this subject, and have spoken with two voices. Sometimes they say the whole duty must be paid by the licensee and sometimes they say the licensee will be able to throw it on the consumer. I do not intend to argue that matter, except to say that if it is thrown on the consumer then it does amount to an additional and exceptional taxation on British-made beer. I will not deal with or press that point, but there is another point we have discussed in Committee more than once, and that is the question of clubs. Is it not quite plain that when you are putting an oppressive tax upon one form of machinery for selling liquor and leaving another very little affected by your proposals you are committing an additional injustice of a very special kind? I do not see how you are to defend it. The right hon. Gentleman complains of some figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield in the excellent speech with which he opened this Debate, and in which my hon. Friend said that among the burdens thrown on the trade is the amount of compensation they have to pay for compensation levied under the Act of 1904. The right hon. Gentleman opposite would not admit the force of that argument. He said, "Not at all. That money was paid as an insurance, in order to give security to this particular kind of trade, and should not be regarded as a burden." I can understand that argument if it gives security, and it did give security at the date when the present Government came into office. I do not think it ought to have been counted as a burden on the trade until those new projects of legislation were forced on the attention of the country. To compel people to go on paying security and to take away their security at the same time seems to be a proceeding left to the financial ingenuity of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. That reminds me of one point, which shall be the last of the arguments I shall put before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield pointed out that it was inconsistent—I think he used the word ungracious—for Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House to criticise the system of payment according to annual value, because, said
  1892
  the hon. Member for Huddersfield, payment according to annual value was the principle adopted in the Act of 1904. Well, does not the Committee see that a principle may be anomalous and yet may be tolerable if either the object for which the money is levied be one beneficial for those on whom it is levied, as under the Act of 1904, or else that the amount to be levied on that anomalous scale is not very large? It is when you get levying enormous sums, not for the benefit of persons for whom it is levied but on a scale of injustice, that then the full magnitude of those anomalies come about and they become the immediate and direct cause of hardships which are absolutely intolerable, and which might well have been included when the whole scale on which the money was to be levied is of a much smaller or more moderate kind. No one would ever defend Mr. Gladstone's scale of 1880. The only defence I have ever heard anybody put-forward is that, although the scale of 1880 was bad, it was better than that for which it was substituted. In this imperfect world that must be taken as a defence so-far as it goes, but because we were quite ready to admit the scale is anomalous it is no attack at all on what we ourselves did in 1904, nor is it any answer to the comments or criticisms which we make on the gross injustice of the present proposals of the Government. In an excellent speech of high principle delivered early in the afternoon by the Member for Salford he explained that he objected to any tax which arbitrarily singled out special industries for exceptional burdens, and it was on that ground that he was to vote against the present proposals of the Government. I absolutely agree with that hon. Gentleman, though I am amazed he favoured us with his silence on other parts of the Budget which seemed at least as much open to the particular form of criticism as that we are now discussing. At all events, I quite agree that the principle is sound, and I agree that the principle is violated in this Clause. You have chosen a special section of the community, not because they are specially able to pay, but, on the contrary, because prejudice has existed against them owing to the particular trade they are engaged in. That is grossly unjust, grossly unfair, and it does not become less unjust or less unfair, but, in my opinion, it becomes much more shocking to anybody who really tries to look at these things impartially when he discovers, perhaps unconsciously to the very people on

  1893
  whom the tax is imposed, that it is imposed under the guise of morality. Nothing is so injurious to public morality as actions of this sort done under the cloak of morality. I think in that respect this is the worst tax of the whole Budget. Other taxes there are which are open to criticism, but no tax is at once so plainly and obviously unjust to those on whom it is imposed, no other tax has this hypocritical veil thrown around it to disguise its naked hideousness, as this tax which has been put on because the trade is unpopular, and which they would never dare to put on if it had not been for that accidental circumstance. These are reasons, in my opinion, more than adequate for the vote which I shall give in favour of the Amendment.
  Mr. HORATIO BOTTOMLEY: I have been wondering all the afternoon whether any voice was going to be raised in reference to the incidence of these taxes in so far as they affect that not unimportant portion of the British dominions called London, and inasmuch as whatever be their merits and their justification, as to which we have heard both sides now ad nauseam, and inasmuch as they mean beyond any question absolute ruin and disaster to a large portion of the persons engaged in the licensing trade of London, I ask myself where are the London Members to-day and what are they doing? There was a time when we had one or two London Members whose voices were occasionally heard in an independent strain. There was the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Masterman) and the hon. Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), who both paid the penalty for their independence by being relegated to a subordinate position on the Treasury Bench, where the mischief they can do in future will be perpetrated on one or other of the public Departments, and not upon the party machine. To-day, so far as London Members are concerned, all has been silence. I think the Committee may reasonably give its attention to the terrible incidence of this Schedule so far as the London licensed victuallers are concerned. The hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) fell into the illusion which seems to permeate the minds of so many Gentlemen in regard to this Bill. When the inherent injustice and impracticability of this tax became manifest, the Government, by an adroit concession, which means practically nothing to the ordinary licensed victualler, said, "We will make an exception in favour
  1894
  of the man whose premises are over £500 a year." Premises over £500 a year are an insignificant number. In London they do not number 1,000 out of some 7,000 or 8,000 licence holders. It is the little man, who is at present paying his £30, £40, £50 a year, who will be called upon to pay this £250 a year, who is looking with dismay and serious and grave apprehension at this burden, which means the closing of his premises in a large number of cases. I know that that argument does not appeal to the Chancellor of the Duchy, because that is one of the indirect objects of the Schedule. In my own Constituency the licensed premises are the centres of the social and local life, and but for them athletic clubs, musical clubs, societies of all kinds which have no habitation, and against whom there has not been one charge of misconduct for years past, could not exist. In the scale of offences which came before our criminal courts the licensed victualler comes out on top in the way of good conduct and immunity from offence. To these men, who to-day find the utmost difficulty in getting anything like a living out of their business, this tax means ruin.
  The fact is that the small licensed victualler cannot pay this tax, and it seems to me that there is an obligation on the Government to show that he can. Does not the Government itself admit that there is something wrong about the whole thing? The Leader of the Opposition has emphasised the fact of the novel introduction into our fiscal system of imposing a burden with the hall-mark on it at its inception of suspicion and doubt as to its fairness and its equity. I have never read of any tax being imposed and being vouched for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in such a manner as to throw suspicion on its equity, and even on its temporary existence. If the Government says that perhaps this 50 per cent. may work hardly on the small man, why could they not wait for a year and impose the tax on a new basis? If the Licensing Bill of last year had passed the Government would have had to wait not only for a year, but for all time. Had that Bill passed there would have been no further taxation for the trade in this year's Budget, or for 14 or 21 years to come. I am not going to argue the ethics of this tax. It is admitted by the Government that it has something more than a fiscal purpose. It is admitted that one of its objects is to close public-houses, but whereas under the Act of the Leader of

  1895
  the Opposition the tendency was to close the lower class houses, the tendency here is to close the better class houses, so that this is the new policy of the Government—to close the better class houses and to perpetuate the inferior houses. The more one considers it the more one sees the hopeless muddle into which we are getting by the introduction of moral legislation into a fiscal measure. This proposal means, not only the doom of the Bill, but the doom of the Government. There are very few Members on this side of the House who, if they said on this floor what they say outside, do not in their heart of hearts believe that whatever merits there may be in the Budget are counteracted in the public estimation by this proposal, and who do not shudder at the prospect, in a few weeks' time perhaps, of having to go before their constituents and justify the infliction of a monstrous injustice upon a law-abiding and ever-increasingly respectable section of the community. From the point of view of the London Members, I protest against a large section of my own Constituents being deprived of their livelihood. The position of London is so
  unique, the assessment is so high, that a man may be paying on an infinitely higher assessment than a man doing an infinitely greater trade in some other centre of the country. It is monstrously unjust that there should be no provision made for him. If it were Ireland, his case would be entertained at once. If the London Members would only unite, as the Irish Members have united, to put the case of London, free from party politics, on the mere ground of bread-and-butter politics, to the Government, they could insist upon having these iniquitous clauses taken out of the Bill so far as London is concerned, and incidentally they could do that which perhaps is unworthy of consideration in a moral atmosphere of this kind—they could save their seats, almost everyone of which they will deservedly lose.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 84.

  Division No. 767.]

  AYES.

  [6.30 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Henry, Charles S.

  Armitage, R.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crossley, William J.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hodge, John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barker, Sir John

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Elibank, Master of

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Beale, W. P.

  Erskine, David C.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Essex, R. W.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lamont, Norman

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Branch, James

  Gill, A. H.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Brigg, John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Byles, William Pollard

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lupton, Arnold

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lynch, H. B.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gulland, John W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Clough, William

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighshire)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Massie, J.

  Robinson, S.

  Verney, F. W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Vivian, Henry

  Mond, A.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walters, John Tudor

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Myer, Horatio

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Napier, T. B.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Seddon, J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Seely, Colonel

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Pointer, J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras S.)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Winfrey, R.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Summerbell, T.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

  Rees, J. D.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Moore, William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Foster, P. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nield, Herbert

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Haddock, George B.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Renwick, George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Snowden, P.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanier, Beville

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Keswick, William

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Young, Samuel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Younger, George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Question put accordingly, "That the words 'A duty equal to,' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 142.

  Division No. 768.]

  AYES.

  [6.36 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Brigg, John

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Beale, W. P.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Armitage, R.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clough, William

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Caring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Barker, Sir John

  Branch, James

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighshire)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Jackson, R. S.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Robinson, S.

  Crossley, William J.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lamont, Norman

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Seddon, J.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Seely, Colonel

  Erskine, David C.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Shackleton, David James

  Essex, R. W.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lupton, Arnold

  Snowden, P.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Verney, F. W.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mond, A.

  Vivian, Henry

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Gulland, John W.

  Morrell, Philip

  Walters, John Tudor

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Myer, Horatio

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Napier, T. B.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Watt, Henry A.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nuttall, Harry

  Weir, James Galloway

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pointer, J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hodge, John

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Winfrey, R.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Rees, J. D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Norton and Sir E. Strachey.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Ambrose, Robert

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Dillon, John

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hills, J. W.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hunt, Rowland

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Keating, M.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Field, William

  Kerry, Earl of

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Keswick, William

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Boland, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Foster, P. S.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Ginnell, L.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gretton, John

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Lundon, T.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Handock, George B.

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Harrington, Timothy

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hazleton, Richard

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Crean, Eugene

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  M'Kean, John

  1900

  1901

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Sheehy, David

  Mooney, J. J.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Moore, William

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Stanier, Beville

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Starkey, John R.

  Muldoon, John

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Murnaghan, George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Summerbell, T.

  Murphy, John (Kerry, E.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Nield, Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Renwick, George

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Young, Samuel

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Younger, George

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  O'Malley, William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  O'Shee, James John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Mr. JOHN REDMOND Mr. JOHN REDMOND moved, in Scale 2 (C), Retailers' On-Licences (Spirits—Publican's Licence), after the words "subject to" ["half the annual value of the licensed premises subject to"], to insert the words "in the case of England and Scotland."
  The Amendment which I have risen to move raises the whole question of the relation of Ireland to the new taxes. There will be a further Amendment to insert, after "half," "and in the case of Ireland one-third." The object of the Amendment, therefore, is to provide that instead of half the annual value in Ireland it shall be one-third the annual value. This Amendment really raises the whole question of the relation of Ireland to these taxes, and while I do not intend to delay the House more than a very few minutes, at the same time it will be necessary to make allusion, not merely to the question of the annual value, but also to the other serious question that affects Ireland, namely, the minimum limit, as to which we have a specific Amendment on the Paper a little lower down. If the minimum limit were abolished even, or if it were seriously altered, it would not in our opinion meet the case of Ireland. It certainly would not meet the case of grievances in the great cities of Belfast, Dublin, or Cork. The Prime Minister, speaking on the question, made allusion recently to the fact that there were only 900 houses in Ireland above £50 valuation. Let me call his attention to the fact that in Belfast there are 643 houses altogether, and 343 of those houses are above £50 valuation, and under the Bill as it stands a sum of £12,000 additional taxation will be put upon those houses. The case of Belfast is an exceptional case. Recently there has been a revaluation in Belfast, and it is the only city in Ireland that has been so revalued, although a revaluation has commenced in Dublin. The
  1902
  revaluation which came into effect in 1901 in Belfast raised the valuation of these houses from £27,000 to £60,000, and the local taxation paid by the owners of these houses was raised by that valuation front £9,000 to £20,000. The Licence Duty paid by them was raised from £9,000 to £13,600. That is to say, that valuation put increased taxes upon the licensed houses of Belfast to the extent of £15,600, and now on top of that this Bill comes along and proposes to put on £12,000 more—that is to say, £27,600 new taxes upon the licence holders of Belfast. That is an enormous impost. Fifty-four per cent. of all the houses of Belfast will be severely hit by it, and I have received information from those who have the best reason to speak with authority on the matter to the effect that under the operations of this Bill as it stands one-third of the houses will be entirely extinguished. Let me just give the Prime Minister a few individual cases in Belfast. I have a list here of a great many cases, but I will only read out two or three. The first is the case of a house the present valuation of which is £725. The present licence is £43, and the new licence will be £269. In the next case the valuation is £4130, the present licence is £40, and the new licence £215. In the next the valuation is £440, the present Licence Duty £40, and the new tax £220. I have a list here of 20 or 30 sample cases of this kind, showing that under the Bill as it stands a new tax will be put upon these houses which I do not think anybody would seriously defend as just or proper.
  My case is that these instances of injustice and oppression would not be met simply by a diminution in the minimum scale, and the only way really to meet the case in a city like Belfast is by the Government amending the Bill first by reducing the annual value from one-half to one-third, as we propose in this Amendment,

  1903
  and in addition to that dealing with the minimum limit in the way that we propose. What I said with reference to Belfast is in a modified way true of the City of Dublin, although the City of Dublin has not been as yet fully revalued. It is true also of the City of Cork; and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister will admit that to inflict an injustice of this character on these great cities would be a proceeding foreign, I hope, entirely from the intention of the Government. Therefore I press upon the right hon. Gentleman the first Amendment which I am now moving, namely, to reduce the annual value for the purpose of assessment from one-half the annual value to one-third. Now let me deal for a moment with the question of the minimum limit, because these are the two points on which the connection of Ireland with these taxes is really concerned, and it would be for the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman, and certainly for the convenience of the House and of the Irish Members, if he would tell us generally what his attitude will be on the Irish part of this case. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the minimum limit as defined in this Bill is not suitable to Ireland. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), who is an authority upon all these matters, and who has put the Irish Members under great obligations to him for the trouble he has taken in this matter, and for the assistance he has given to us, for which I beg to return our thanks, has published a number of statistics of the most important and unanswerable character. For instance, he shows that taking the minimum limit as described in the Bill as applying to Ireland in towns of less than 2,000 inhabitants there would be 64 per cent. of the houses dealt with in Ireland, whereas there would only be 4 per cent. of the houses dealt with in England and 5 per cent. in Scotland, and in towns running from 2,000 to 5,000 inhabitants the number of houses affected by the minimum limit in the Bill would be 74 per cent. in Ireland and only 15 per cent. in Scotland and 19 per cent. in England. In towns: of from 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants the proportions of houses affected would be 84 per cent. in Ireland, 28 per cent. in Scotland, and 32 per cent. in England; and in towns of from 10,000 to 50,000 inhabitants there would be 90 per cent. of the houses dealt with in Ireland, and in Scotland 35 per cent. and in England 34 per cent. Therefore, it is manifest, without going beyond
  1904
  these figures, that the licence scale as provided in the Bill—whether it is suitable for England or not or for Scotland I do not know—but, so far as Ireland is concerned, is manifestly unsuitable. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, I am glad to say, admitted that recently, but he resisted the claim I put forward that the only way of meeting the injustice was the total abolition of the minimum limit as far as Ireland is concerned, and he has put an Amendment on the Paper to reduce the minimum limit in the case of Ireland by 50 per cent. I assure him, and I have gone most carefully into this with all sorts and conditions of men, that that Amendment does not meet our grievances.
  Take the case of the City of Cork. There are 500 houses in Cork. Two hundred of these 500 houses are only licensed to-day at £4 10s., and the remaining 300 are all licensed at, in or about, £6 or £6 10s. Under the minimum limit, even reduced by 50 per cent., as proposed by the Government Amendment, these houses will be all raised to £15. It will be admitted that that is an increase in the Licence Duty which is not justified by the facts or the circumstances. The same thing is true of the City of Dublin, and, as I pointed out, in the City of Belfast, and I urge upon the Prime Minister most strongly that he should go further and accept our proposal for the abolition of the minimum limit. When the right hon. Gentleman announced on the last occasion that he was going to make a concession to Ireland to the extent of 50 per cent. of the minimum limit under the Bill, he was instantly as sailed by the Leader of the Opposition for making the concession for the purpose of buying Irish votes. Does the House remember the statement of the Leader of the Opposition last night when he asked, "Why have they taken off the Cider Duty? Why have they not given way to the Irish Members? It is because they know how the Irish Members are going to vote. They have given way in the case of cider because they are uncertain how the Members interested in cider districts are going to vote." If the Prime Minister makes the concession to Ireland to-night I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not get up and say that it is for the purpose of getting Irish votes. It would be inconsistent with his statement last night that the Government know how we are going to vote on every occasion. I ask the Prime Minister—and I am sure he is too experienced in these matters to be affected—not to be influenced in the smallest degree by this

  1905
  type of banter across the House. If there is any odium to be incurred by the Government in going out of their way to differentiate between the case of Ireland and England, they will not incur a bit more odium by doing the thing thoroughly than by doing the thing in a half-hearted way. Let them have the courage of their convictions in this matter. If they think we have no justice in our case, let them refuse our case altogether. I put that to them frankly. If they do not think we have got a fair case, let them reject it. If they think we have a fair case, let them not meet us in a half-hearted way for the purpose of trying to buy off attacks of hon. Members above the Gangway. Having said so much, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to allay the intense anxiety which exists in Ireland upon this matter and announce a concession that will give some hope of protection to the people who are threatened.
  The PRIME MINISTER: On the last occasion on which we discussed this matter, when I announced that the Government, so far as Ireland was concerned, proposed a reduction of the minimum, I was accused, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has reminded us, of something in the nature, I will not say a corrupt, but a sinister, bargain with the Irish party. Well, it has been a singularly unfruitful one so far as our proceedings recently are concerned. I have followed the Division Lists very closely, and my impression is that during the whole of last week the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends voted steadily against us. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some of them."] The great majority of them.
  7.0 P.M.
  In the very Division which has just taken place I think the whole body of those Members went into the Lobby against us; so I think that the right hon. Gentleman, even with his acute and suspicious imagination, and who became yesterday transparently angry in reference to the Cider Duty, will see that, so far, there has not been much encouragement to renew on a larger scale those sinister, electoral, political bargains. Therefore I ask the Committee to believe me when I say, speaking on behalf of the Government, that we address ourselves to this question—perhaps I am making a large draft on the credulity of hon. Gentlemen opposite—with a single-minded eye to its real merits. The hon. and learned
  1906
  Gentleman has proposed an Amendment which would actually reduce the 50 per cent. to 33 per cent. in the case of Ireland. That is a proposition which—I am sure he will anticipate what I am going to say—the Government cannot possibly accept. I think there must be, for many reasons, a uniform duty; and, even if it were not so, the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman amounts to this, that, as regards the larger number, I think I may say the vast majority of Irish licences, it would lower the rate of duty which has been paid ever since the year 1880. Of course that is quite inconsistent with the object of this Bill, which is to raise revenue, and, therefore, a proposal of the kind suggested by the hon. and learned Member cannot be accepted. Let me point out that 95 per cent. of Irish licensed houses are under £50 annual value. As regards houses which are not of a higher annual value than £50, the scale proposed by the Bill is substantially the same as the scale under the existing law. Therefore, Ireland, as regards 95 per cent. of its, houses, is not really hit by the scale at all, or hit very inappreciably, and only in such cases as the hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken of. In case of the larger class of houses, in a city like Belfast, the conditions are much more analogous to those of English and Scotch industrial centres than in perhaps any other part of Ireland. I am going to admit, and I have admitted on previous occasions, that the real grievance that Ireland would suffer under the proposals of this Bill would be the grievance of raising the scale of duty on the same minimum. It is not the duty, as I have pointed out—because in 95 per cent. of the cases the duty is substantially unchanged—which causes the grievance. It is owing to the character of the trade and the social and economic conditions in which it is carried on, and the application of what I may call the British minimum would raise the scale of taxation in regard to a vast mass of Irish licensed houses. The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted some figures compiled by and published by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, who, I think, has rendered very great service in the elucidation of this problem. Everybody knows that the hon. Member for Huddersfield is an ardent political temperance reformer, and that he, at any rate, is not in any sinister relationship with the Irish party, whatever maybe the case with the Government, who are always under some suspicion.

  1907
  The hon. and learned Member for Waterford quoted some striking figures, and may I put before the Committee other figures equally striking and which tend in the same direction. The proportion of low value public-houses is enormously higher in Ireland than in England or Scotland, and the figures which I am about to give, I think, will show that. If you take, the annual value of under £20, in England the percentage is 12, in Scotland 8, and in Ireland no less than 75 per cent. Take the annual value of under £50, in England it is 49 per cent.; Scotland, 42 per cent.; and in Ireland no less than 95 per cent. Moreover, this is another distinguishing feature in the Irish case: The lowest annual value in Ireland, unlike what is commonly the case in England or Scotland, are to be found alike in the rural and urban districts, while in Great Britain, for the most part, they are confined to the rural districts. Here, again, I will trouble the Committee with two or three figures. The number of houses of the annual value of under £20 in areas where the population is 10,000 or upwards are as follows: In England, 431 towns, 370 houses; Scotland, 39 towns, 41 houses; in Ireland, 21 towns, and no less than 959 houses. These figures give an average of one house per town in England and Scotland, as compared with no less than 45 per town in Ireland. The more the matter is investigated the more I think every fair-minded man will be disposed to come to the conclusion, which, after going into the matter very carefully, we have done, that the different conditions require consideration. These conditions arise partly from the system of valuation which has so long prevailed in Ireland, and partly from the fact that the trade in Ireland is a mixed trade, and that the houses in which the business is carried on are not public-houses in the sense in which that term is used either in England or Scotland. They are more in the nature of general stores where other commodities are sold, and often sold in greater quantities and with much more profit to the retailer than the actual sale of drink brings in. Taking all these circumstances into account, and all these very striking figures which I have quoted, it is impossible to come to the conclusion that we should apply the same minimum to Ireland as to England and Scotland; it would be doing a great injustice, and would be ignoring entirely the marked and, I would add, fundamental difference between the social conditions of
  1908
  the two countries. It is upon these grounds, and these grounds only, that the Government have come to the conclusion that it is impossible, as I announced a few weeks ago, after full investigation of the matter, to apply the same minimum to Ireland as to England and Scotland. The question is what shall we do; what will meet the justice of the case?
  The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that there should be no minimum at all. As I said when I spoke a few weeks ago, we cannot assent to that. We think there ought to be, a minimum, a proper, reasonable and just minimum, for the same reason as we apply a minimum in England and Scotland. The question is what ought the minimum to be. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy has on the Paper an Amendment reducing the minimum which we propose for England and Scotland by 50 per cent. That is a very large concession, and certainly we hope that it will meet all the necessities of the case; but I think as regards certain classes of public-houses and certain areas of population in Ireland that the conditions which obtain in that country should be considered. Cork is a very exceptional case indeed. There is no other case like it, and I rather demur to Cork being taken as an illustration. The minimum of 50 per cent. would really mean as regards the great bulk of houses under £50 that there would be no change at all. The minimum would not have the effect of forcing up the taxation of these houses. The hon. and learned Gentleman has put down an Amendment proposing that £5 should be the minimum, but his proposal would have the same effect as regards the great majority of these houses. I should be disposed to accept his suggestion for a fixed minimum of £5 as regards houses in areas up to a population not exceeding 10,000. There are very few indeed of these. When you get to the urban areas of Ireland where the population exceeds 10,000, then, I think, different considerations do come in, and we might very well fix the scale of duty at the figure of £7 10s. That would give you, as regards the rural areas and all the urban areas with a population not exceeding 10,000, a fixed duty of £5, which, I think, would correspond pretty accurately with the Government proposal of 50 per cent., and would give you the fixed duty of £7 10s., which is very considerably lower than the duty would be in either England or Scotland, or any part of Great Britain, while it does at the same time, to some extent, correspond

  1909
  with the altered social conditions of Ireland. I believe that an Amendment of that sort would be a very real and substantial one, and would remove the whole core and substance of the Irish grievance. The hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are quite right in pressing forward the interests of their own country in reference to this particular class of tradesmen in order that they may be placed on a footing of substantial equality with their fellow tradesmen in England and Scotland.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Do I understand that the Government will put down an Amendment themselves?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand an Amendment will be moved by someone representing the Government to make an addition to the hon. and learned Gentlemen's Amendment. I do not agree, if I may say so, either with the criticisms which have been made by the Leader of the Opposition or with some of the observations which have been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself in regard to the treatment of Ireland in this matter. The Leader of the Opposition thinks, or suspects at any rate, that for a purpose which I will not again describe we are showing some favour to Ireland. I do not think we are. You cannot get mathematical equality, but, more or less, we get some kind of equality in the treatment of the two countries, whose social conditions and systems of valuation are entirely distinct. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford, when, last night, I refused, and rightly refused, to deal with the case of small breweries in Ireland on a different footing from the case of the small brewer in England and Scotland, said: "Oh, you will not remedy an admitted grievance in Ireland, because England and Scotland stand in the way." That was not the case. We dealt out perfectly even justice to Ireland in the case of the small breweries. That was our object. That was our intention, and that I believe to be the effect. And in the same way we have tried to do equal justice by removing what would be the injustice and inequality if the minimum were to pass without qualification.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: While on this side we gladly welcome any concession, thankful for the smallest mercies in the case of a Budget of this kind, no matter what the motives which prompted the concession were, at the same time, speaking for myself, I decline to be any party either
  1910
  to asking for or accepting a concession which all publicans are entitled to, whether in England, or Ireland, or Scotland, so long as that concession is confined to Ireland. The concession of the right hon. Gentleman, which he has foreshadowed, he has sought to justify on two grounds, and I think I will demonstrate to the House in a very few minutes that on neither of the grounds which he has thought to base this concession upon can any case whatever be made that will hold water for one minute. As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman has sought to discriminate, and thinks there is a case calling for discrimination, in favour of publicans in Ireland for two reasons—first, by reason of the system of valuation which prevails there; and second, owing to the nature and systems of the trade. With regard to both of those I will, I think, satisfy the House that the Irish publican has been always the spoilt child of licensing legislation. Let me take in the first place this question of the annual valuation. Now, there is no doubt whatever that the vast majority of the public-houses in Ireland are very lowly rated and very lowly valued. I start with that admission, and when I explain to the House how that has come about, and what is the reason of it, they will see at once that so far from justifying a discrimination in favour of Ireland, it shows that as a result of the system of valuation that has been in force the Irish publican ever since 1880 has been in a position of tremendous advantage as compared with his brother either in England or in Scotland.
  What has been the methods for ascertaining the annual valuation of public-houses in Ireland on which hitherto the duties have been based and assessed? Under the Acts of 1880, the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of that year, and I have verified this matter by reference to "Hansard," I find that when the Bill was originally introduced in 1880 by Mr. Gladstone it contained no exemption in favour of Ireland, and the system of valuation upon which Licensing Duties under that Act were to be assessed was to be uniform all over the United Kingdom. But in the course of Committee discussion in 1880 the case was made on behalf of Ireland that owing to the fact that there was so much mixed trading in Ireland, Ireland was entitled to a different system of valuation for the purpose of assessing the Licensing Duties, and it was in consequence of the very case which was then made, and the case which

  1911
  is now being utilised, doing duty twice over, as to the existence of this system of mixed trading, that Mr. Gladstone ultimately gave way and introduced an Amendment as regards valuation in Ireland which is to be found in the 43rd Section of the 43 Vict., cap. 14, Inland Revenue and Customs Act of 1880. Shortly put, that meant that Griffith's valuation was to prevail for the purpose of ascertaining the annual value of licensed premises, and that the total valuation of the licensed houses for the purpose of assessing the duty was not to exceed the amount of that valuation plus 20 per cent. It did not say it was to amount to that, but that that was to be the maximum, and that concession was made as the future basis for ascertaining licensing duties in Ireland on the very ground of the case that is now put forward by the right hon. Gentleman as justifying this fresh and further concession. In so far as Ireland was entitled to any concession by reason of her mixed trading she got that in 1880, and she has had the advantage of it ever since, and it is absurd that should now be put forward as a reason for giving a further concession. That whole grievance which was alleged to arise as to mixed trading was fully provided for by the provisions of the Section I have referred to.
  That is not the whole of the case as regards preferential treatment to Ireland. It is as the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) pointed out, and as the Prime Minister has stated, quite true that as compared with Scotland and as compared with England the average valuation of the Irish public-houses is exceedingly low, but that is entirely due to the fact I have pointed out, that Ireland has had since 1880 the benefit of a special system of valuation for itself, and if you had valued public-houses in England and public-houses in Scotland on the same principle on which they are valued in Ireland you would have had the same average rate of valuation prevailing. But I am pointing out that it is perfectly ludicrous to try and make a case for Ireland excluding Scotland and England from it on the ground of the existing low valuation in Ireland, which in itself was the result of a concession gained in 1880, and which Ireland has enjoyed ever since. That does not exhaust the whole of the case. Up to four years ago, although that was the prescribed method of valuation, so tender
  1912
  were the valuation authorities in dealing with Irish public-houses that they were going on an entirely wrong legal method and basis, with the result that they were allowing publicans all over Ireland to escape even under this Section with a valuation that was something like 40 per cent. lower than it legally ought to be. That question came up for determination about four years ago for the first time in a case from Belfast, and the result of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland is this, that it decided that ever since 1880 the system of valuation that was adopted and which purported to be carried out in pursuance of this Section was entirely wrong, and that the Irish publican had been allowed to escape with a valuation that was something like 40 per cent. or 30 per cent. below what it ought to be. The reason of that was that the valuation authorities in making out the annual valuation under this Act of 1880 did not take into account the fact that the premises had a licence attached. They merely valued the premises as an ordinary building without a licence, and in 1905 it was decided for the first time that all that was wrong, and that from 1880 to 1905 the publican had been escaping a substantial percentage of valuation.
  There again the Irish publican had a tremendous advantage, and he is enjoying that advantage still all over Ireland except in the City of Belfast, because unfortunately no change can be made and no correction can be made in the mistake that has prevailed since 1880, unless and until there is a general revaluation. There has been no general revaluation except in Belfast. There is one at present supposed to be going on in Dublin. It has been going on for five or six years, but how long it will continue before anything emerges I know not. But in Dublin and all over the rest of Ireland, except in Belfast, the publicans are still enjoying not merely the low valuation prescribed in their favour in the Act of 1880, but the reduced valuation resulting from the wrong application of the principle ever since that Act was passed. Therefore I say if you take it on the question of valuation it is perfectly ludicrous to suggest that you can make a case for Ireland. The very lowness of the valuation of Ireland is itself an advantage, and a tremendous one, the Irish publican has enjoyed as against his colleague in Scotland or in England. I am not arguing for one moment against this concession.
  Mr. M. KEATING: Then the right hon. Gentleman will support it?
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I want this concession. I am not in the least arguing against it, but if it is to be a concession it should be given to every publican, whether he carries on his trade in Ireland or Scotland or England, and the object of what I have already said is to point out that if the publicans of Ireland are entitled to this concession, then it is a fortiori a case for the publican in Scotland and in England.
  That does not nearly exhaust the advantages which the Irish publican has as compared with his Scotch brother, or a publican carrying on business in England. In this country it has been always contended, at least by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that there is no property in the licences of publicans in this country, and it has been suggested that that is the result of the decision in the case of Sharpe v. Wakefield. Sharpe v. Wakefield has no authority or application to Ireland; and I am not sure that hon. Members who represent English constituencies are alive to this fact, that in Ireland it has been decided that a publican has a property in his licence, and is entitled to transfer that property regardless of the existing number of public-houses, and that he is entitled to have his licence renewed regardless of the existing number of public-houses. The essential difference in the law of Ireland as compared with England is this, that the justices in England can kill a licence at their discretion either on renewal or transfer, but in Ireland it is impossible for them to do that. They can only refuse to renew or to transfer either in consequence of the misconduct of a man or the unsuitability of the premises. Therefore the Irish publican has a huge monopoly in his business. He has a real property and a real monopoly, and that distinguishes him again from the publican in England or in Scotland. Rut he is in a still stronger position as regards monopoly, because in 1902 this House passed an Act under which from that date the granting of any new licences in Ireland was prohibited. The result of that has been immeasurably to enhance the monopoly of the existing licence-holders. I should like to know what enormous value there would be attaching to licensed property in England or Scotland if the House of Commons passed a law declaring that no additional licences were to be granted? That, however, is the case in Ireland. In all these points the Irish publican is in a posi-
  1914
  tion of tremendous strength and advantage as compared with his coleagues in England or in Scotland.
  Now take the other ground on which the Prime Minister sought to justify the granting of this concession to Ireland to the exclusion of Scotland and England. If any hon. Member opposite would propose the extension of the concession to England and Scotland I would gladly vote with him, but I shall not vote for a concession to any single portion of the United Kingdom, particularly so long as it is based on arguments which are directly in conflict with the existing facts. The second ground on which it was sought to justify this concession was the existence of mixed trading in Ireland. I wonder how hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are strong friends of temperance, are going to deal with that? There could be no more vicious system of carrying on the business of a publican than the system of mixed trading as it prevails in Ireland. The immediate effect of this concession will be to place a premium upon small public-houses, with ill-fitted and unsuitable premises, and I would ask the hon. Members for Appleby (Mr. Leif Jones), Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts), and Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), whether, as temperance reformers, they are going to support a proposition which will place a premium on premises where the business is carried on under a system of mixed trading as this proposal will do? It is justified on that ground alone. I have received urgent requests during the past week from religious communities without distinction in Ireland asking me to appeal to this Committee not to give the proposed privilege to such a system.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman divide against it? If so, I will gladly vote with him.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I intend to divide against it; and I hope I shall have the same response from the hon. Members for Lincoln and Huddersfield as I have received from the hon. Member for the Appleby Division.
  Mr. SHERWELL: As far as I am concerned, I may say at once that I propose to act on the principle which has received such forcible expression on the other side, that this is a fiscal and not a temperance matter.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I rather suspected that. I have noticed that some temperance reformers seem to be divided in their position between what I may call

  1915
  "social temperance" and "political intemperance," and they usually make the selection in favour of the latter. All I can say is that I do not think much value can be attached to the hon. Member's temperance profession if he is going to vote for a proposal to give direct preferential treatment to public-houses carried on under a system which causes the greatest amount of temptation, misery, and drunkenness at home, and, moreover, to do that in the case of houses which have been enjoying ever since 1880 a distinct preference at the hands of the Legislature as compared with similar establishments in England and Scotland. When the position of affairs in Ireland is compared with that which prevails in England and Scotland, hon. Members often forget the admittedly excessive and extravagant number of houses that exist in Ireland. The total number of public-houses in Ireland is 17,000, of which 7,000 are valued at less than £10 a year; whereas the total number of houses in Scotland is 6,000. So that instead of passing legislation which would succeed in replacing a substantial number of those small, badly equipped premises, unsuitable in themselves and unsuitable by reason of the mixed trading carried on, the Government are going to perpetuate their existence by encouraging them, and giving them preferential treatment in the matter of taxation.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman wipe them out without compensation?
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: No. The hon. and learned Member knows as well as any man that there is no one in this House or out of it who has a stronger view as to the inequity or injustice of confiscating the property of any man or of any class without compensation. I am not arguing this case at all with the object of depriving Ireland of this concession, so long as it is extended under similar conditions to similar people in England and Scotland; but I will be no party to asking the Committee under false pretences to make a concession to Ireland. I am not suggesting that the condition of the average publican in Ireland is worse than that of the average publican in Scotland or in England. It is nothing of the kind. For the reasons I have given it is, and has been ever since 1880, infinitely better. The Irish publican has a more valuable property in his licence; he has paid less duty, he has had a lower valua-
  1916
  tion, and advantages have been extended to him which have been denied to the publican in Scotland and in England. I appeal to those Members who are prepared—not like the hon. Member for Huddersfield, but like the hon. Member for the Appleby Division—to put principle above politics or party, to do this justice to the temperance cause in Ireland, and not to handicap it by doing something unnaturally to preserve and to perpetuate the system which at present prevails. Nothing could be more deplorable in the interests of temperance than the existence of such a vast number of lowly rated, poor, badly equipped, and unsuitable premises for the carrying on of this business. What I should have liked to have seen as a concession would have been something based on the lines of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Licensing Laws, namely, some provision by which, if the publican in Ireland separated the portion of his premises on which the licensed trade was carried on from the portion connected with the general business, an exemption might be given in respect of the rating of the portion devoted to the licensed trade. So long as that is not done, and the Government, under the plea of justice, fair play, and equal treatment all round, give a distinct preference to Ireland, and support it on the two grounds put forward by the Prime Minister, it will take a good deal more argument than he adduced to induce me to believe that this is not part and parcel of the political deal under which hon. Members from Ireland a month ago thought they were quite safe in going home and entrusting the fortunes of the trade to right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. I do not want to be in the least misunderstood. No matter on what ground the concession was put, no matter how liberal or illiberal it was, I would gladly welcome it in a Budget of this kind; but I do not ask for, and will not be a party to obtaining for, Ireland any concession which is denied to England and Scotland, if I am satisfied, as I am, in my heart and conscience, that the circumstances and conditions of the trade in Ireland do not require that it should obtain that concession by way of preference over men engaged in the same trade in Scotland or in England.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just delivered one of the most extraordinary speeches I have ever heard in this House. The Prime Minister proposed to make a con-

  1917
  cession, which, as he most truthfully stated, was no special favour to Ireland at all, but an attempt to place the people of Ireland engaged in this particular trade on an equality with men similarly engaged in England, taking into consideration the different social circumstances of the trade. How is it met by the right hon. and learned Member? He gets up and delivers a ferocious philippic, rejecting and repudiating this concession because it is a concesson to Ireland. I hope his friends and supporters in Ireland will take note of his words to-night. The organ in Dublin which chiefly supports the party of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has been attacking the Irish Nationalist leaders with the greatest ferocity for the last three months for not obtaining these concessions, and much larger concessions, for the publican of Ireland. The offer—as I shall show just now—goes a long part, but not the whole of the way, towards doing what we consider fair justice. The "Irish Times" has been clamouring for this, and then the representative of the Unionist party starts up in his place, and delivers one of the most ferocious and one of the most unjust attacks that I have ever listened to in this House. Let me criticise some of his statements for a moment. He commenced by giving a grossly untruthful and false statement of the Irish case.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: In what respect?
  Mr. DILLON: Generally. Then, in the fury of his zeal to prove his case, namely, that the Irish publican was the spoilt child of licensing legislation, he urged that if you were going to do even-handed justice between the Irish and the English publican, you ought to double the tax on the Irish publican. Because the Irish publican has been the spoilt child of licensing legislation, therefore, instead of making this concession to Ireland, the true policy, the right hon. Gentleman urged, ought to have been to put 50 per cent. on the tax, or to double it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will justify his position in Ireland. Let me take two or three of the propositions the right hon. Gentleman took in the fury of his headlong zeal. First of all, he declared that the monopoly value was more valuable in Ireland than in England and Scotland. He said it was more valuable; then, almost within five minutes, he described the enormous multiplication of licences; that there are 17,000 licences in Ireland with a dwindling population of four and a quarter millions,
  1918
  whilst in Scotland, with a larger population, there are only 6,000 licences. Can the right hon. Gentleman not see the contradiction in his own speech? The monopoly value of one of the 17,000 licences in Ireland is greater than the monopoly value of one in 6,000 in Scotland with a larger population and many times the wealth of Ireland! I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there has grown up in Ireland an outrageous multiplication of licences. Under whose Government? Under the control of the British Government in Ireland, and confirmed by this House. When hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Members for Appleby or Lincoln, or other enthusiasts for social reform and temperance legislation, lecture us in this House, allow me to tell them that we in Ireland are years ahead of the people of this country in temperance legislation. If the control of this House had been removed from Ireland, I venture to say that Ireland would have been a model to the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom in the matter of temperance legislation! What has been the record of Ireland in the matter of temperance legislation? Year after year we have brought Bills into this House and passed them or voted for them. A great majority of Irish Members have supported them. These Bills have been obstructed and killed by this House. It is only after years of effort that the Sunday Closing and other Bills for Ireland were passed. Permit me to say to the temperance advocates opposite—I fully recognise the broad and generous method of criticism in which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) has approached this question—that the worst possible way to promote temperance feeling in Ireland is to do gross injustice, and to legislate ignorantly in these matters without any reference to the peculiar circumstances of the case.
  What was the next thing the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College said? He said that the giving of this concession to Ireland to the small publican as compared to the larger men—this lowering of the minimum—was calculated to increase, perpetuate, and intensify the enormous evil of the existence of these small houses. Therefore, as a moralist, and a man in communication with all the religious societies in Ireland, particularly those who object to play golf on Sunday, he objects to the perpetuation of this evil in Ireland. What does he say in the next sentence? "If you will only consent to extend the evil to Scotland and

  1919
  England I will support it." There is an example of the logical consistency of the hon. and learned Gentleman! So eager, so overwhelming is his zeal to deny this partial concession to Ireland, which undoubtedly removes a considerable part of the grievance which we have been protesting against, that he upsets himself, and falls head over heels in his furious efforts. The Prime Minister described this concession accurately. It is not a special concession to Ireland. It is an attempt to place Ireland in this one respect on a footing of equality with Great Britain. We have heard a great deal of furious rhetoric about the injustice which is going to be inflicted on Ireland by this Budget. I, myself, think there is injustice going to be inflicted upon Ireland. The amount of money which is to be taken out of Ireland has been estimated at £2,000,000 a year. I think that is a grotesque exaggeration. I think a great evil has been done to our cause from the beginning of this prolonged fight that we have been trying to maintain for justice under this Budget to Ireland by the grotesque and monstrous exaggeration which has done service in Ireland as to the effect of the Budget. I believe that the money taken out of Ireland by this Budget will be much nearer a quarter of that sum. For my own part, my chief objection to the Budget is not the amount of money that is to be taken out of Ireland, but the fact that this Budget has been drafted with a sole eye to the conditions of England. To propose to take the money that is to be taken from Ireland under the circumstances is cruel injustice and inequality. Actually under the provisions of this Budget, drafted, as usual, solely and only with a view to the social conditions of England, you propose to take from Ireland a large sum of money. In doing so you are going against a very fundamental principle of taxation, and inflicting the maximum of injustice and hardship upon small sections of the community in Ireland, and on individuals, to obtain a minimum of revenue. Take the case of the Whisky Tax and these licences. I believe that the amount of revenue that you will get from these two taxes is exceedingly small—smaller even than the amount estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—but the amount of injury you will do in Ireland is enormous. The amount of cruelty you will inflict upon individuals, if the Bill remains as originally drafted, is almost incredible. That is my main objection to the system of
  1920
  the incidence of these taxes upon Ireland. These Licence Duties are an extreme example of the effects to which I have just alluded. You draft a Bill which applies the same scale to Ireland as to England.
  8.0 P.M.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College has committed himself to the principle that in dealing with Ireland justice is to be met by applying exactly the same rule and regulation to one as to the other. That gives away the entire case for the overtaxation of Ireland which we have been fighting in this House for years. We have always maintained—what the Royal Commission, after a full investigation, confirmed—that all the injustice of overtaxation upon Ireland has been inflicted by that very system of applying exactly the same scale in your taxes to Ireland as to England without inquiring into the different conditions of the two peoples. That is what is done under the scale of the Licence Duties, though the proposal now put forward by the Prime Minister, I must say, to a very large extent has done away that inequality. I deeply regret the Prime Minister has not seen his way to consent to accept the proposition in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford. The scale of higher licences in Ireland should be one-third instead of one-half. The Prime Minister in his answer pointed out, which was quite true, that 05 per cent. of the houses in Ireland are under £50 in value, and would not be unjustly affected by the scale. It is the remaining 5 per cent.—although perhaps they are comparatively few—that we are speaking for, and the Prime Minister's words are cold comfort to them, for they will be cruelly hit by the higher Licence Duty. I still hold something ought to be done to lighten the grievance which these men, who are chiefly publicans in Dublin and Belfast, suffer. I would suggest that the Government should extend the principle to Ireland that they have adopted in their concession to the City of London. If they will give us in Ireland a figure which would correspond, taking into account the difference in the two countries, to the £500 valuation in London, it would, I think, meet the case. The amount could be fixed at, perhaps, £150 or £200. Now I come to the concession offered by the Prime Minister. It does not, of course, go the whole way of what has been asked by the hon. Member for Waterford. It will be foolish, and I do not propose to do it, to crawl upon my stomach to the Prime

  1921
  Minister for this concession. On the other hand, I think that it is very bad Parliamentary tactics to deny when you are met in a fair way. The concession is a very large and substantial one. Let us take this concession from the point of view of the number of people to whom it applies, and from another point of view to which I, in spite of the religion and the religious feeling of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, attach importance, and that is the need some of those people have of consideration, and I say that, judged by either of those two criterions, these concessions are most valuable because in the first place they apply to a vast number of the publicans in Ireland who would be most severely hit by the original proposal as it stood. In the old scale as applied to Ireland some of the publicans in Cork, for instance, were this concession not made, would be advanced from £6 to £35—that is, nearly sixfold; others from £8 to £35, which is more than fourfold. Now the sudden increase of a tax fourfold on poor men is manifestly unjust and cruel. I know that the City of Cork would have been affected by an increase of £647,000 on the original minimum, whereas some of the English cities about the size of Cork, in reference to which I made some investigation, would be only affected in quite a trivial manner. Therefore I say that this concession, while it does not go the whole way that we felt justified in urging it should go, is still a very substantial concession, and looked at from the point of view of a number of our people to whom it brings relief it is a concession that we ought to thankfully recognise, and it must necessarily modify our attitude towards these Licensing Duties to a large extent. We shall be bound to divide upon this Amendment, and I sincerely hope that at a later stage the Government may see their way to extend some relief to the larger licence-holders on the basis of the relief that is to be given to the City of London. But, speaking here for the Irish Parliamentary party, as I am entitled to do, I heartily thank the Prime Minister for the valuable concession he has given in this very important matter, and I think it will be found to-morrow that I am speaking not only for the Irish Nationalist party, but also that I am speaking the views of the Irish Unionist party.
  Mr. G. FETHERSTONHAUGH: In addition to the advantages that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University said were possessed by the Irish licensed trade, he might have added that they are certainly well represented in this House—so well represented that many of the Members of the party below the Gangway who support the cause of the Irish licensed trade here by their votes and by their speeches would in reality be in favour of temperance measures were it not that they were afraid of the power of the drink trade behind them. One can understand the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) advocating the cause of the Irish publican when one remembers that in a town in his constituency where there are 92 public-houses the population is something like 1,100. Considering these circumstances, one can understand his impassioned advocacy of the Irish publican, and his resistance of what he considers might be an injustice to him. The result of the concession that the Government has foreshadowed means virtually that 95 per cent. of the publicans in Ireland will pay no increased taxation whatsoever. The English publican will have to pay under this Bill. It appears to me that the English publican will have to pay enormously increased taxation, whereas under the concession of the Government the Irish publican will be very much as he is at present. There are in Ireland 17,393 public-houses. That is at least 10,000 too many. Of these 17,393 as many as 7,190 are at the minimum valuation—that is, houses valued from £10 down to, I daresay, a few shillings. Mot one of these will be affected by the present Schedule, and very few of those of the higher valuation. It may be that the circumstances of Ireland are somewhat different as regards this licensed trade, but I have never been able to see where the difference has not been altogether in favour of the Irish publican, and, so far from the Irish publican being entitled to any favour or remission of duty as compared with the English and Scotch publican, I personally am prepared to go to the length of saying that the taxation ought to be increased in place of decreased in Ireland. The Irish publican has got off all these years, and he is likely to get off many more years, from paying anything at all in respect of the licence. He paid duty upon the mere valuation of the walls of the structure without taking into account anything whatever for the value of the licence. Licensed public-houses in Ireland in many

  1923
  cases are valued at practically nominal figures, and pay "duty upon practically nominal figures. In addition to their having the privilege of paying duty upon practically nominal figures, they enjoy another privilege that the English and Scotch publican have not at all. The Irish publican is virtually sure of, and indeed cannot be refused, renewal or transfer. By the decision of our courts he is given the very thing about which we heard so much last Session in the Licensing Act that the English publican does not possess. He has an absolute right of renewal and an absolute right of transfer without reference to the existing number of public-houses, and therefore we have no machinery for the diminution of public-houses. You find 20 or 30 public-houses in a small village, and there is no power on the part of the justices to reduce them in any way. On the other hand, there is no power to increase them under the Act of 1902. Therefore the publican in Ireland is in the happy position that he has a freehold of tenure of his licence and he has the privilege of a purely nominal scale of valuation in respect of that licence. When I heard the Prime Minister giving his two reasons as to why a difference should apply to Ireland as regards licences to that which prevails in this country, I was struck with great surprise, for the reasons seemed to me to tender in exactly the opposite direction. The publican has escaped taxation in Ireland, and has paid nothing like the same rate which is paid here, and the reason given for that was because the business was carried on in Ireland as a mixed business, and that therefore it would not be fair to tax the publicans upon the value of the premises, taking into account the amount of the trade done. I venture to say not half the publicans in Ireland carry on a mixed trade, but are purely and simply publicans, yet they escape from being taxed, and now it is proposed to put them on a very much more favourable scale by exempting them from any increased duty under this Act, although it has to be paid by the publicans in Scotland and England. Having regard to the grossly excessive number of publicans in Ireland, it would have been quite proper to apply to them the same duties as would apply to England and Scotland, and if the result was to get rid of a number of the poorer and more wretched of these 17,393 houses I think it would be doing one of the greatest services to Ireland that any Government has ever done.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I must say I have listened with a great deal of regret to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, because I feel that the cause of temperance which he has at heart is not likely to be helped at all in Ireland by speeches such as the one he has just delivered. I do not think it is possible to help the temperance movement in Ireland by doing anything which is glaringly unjust, and I must say as one who has taken some little part in measures directed towards temperance in this House, that the proposal of the Government as it stands does do very great injustice, and in my opinion would not promote the temperance movement; and I will tell you why. I do not deny, I never have and never shall deny, that in my opinion, and I believe the same is the opinion of a great many Members of all shades of politics, there are a great deal too many public-houses both in Ireland and in this country. I think myself that any well-considered and equitable plan that might be proposed for a real reduction of the number of licensed houses would command a good deal of support even from those who are not supposed to be deeply interested in the temperance movement. Any such scheme would have to be well thought out; it would have to be equitable and it would have in certain cases to be accompanied by some scheme of compensation, and, above all, it would have to be a scheme which would mete out equal justice and fair play between rich and poor in the trade. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the effect of the Schedule as it stands would be to punish or to place a burden not only upon the wealthy publican, but upon the poor publican, but there would be this difference, the Schedule as it stands would inflict a fine upon the rich publican, but he would survive; it would inflict a fine upon the poor publican, and it would at the same time wipe him completely out of existence.
  That in my opinion is very unfair. If you are going to approach this question of the reduction of licences fairly you should not simply make up your mind to do away with the licences of the poor people, and leave those who are wealthy and well-to-do to survive. That is why I am glad the Prime Minister has made this concession, because I believe it is only an act of justice, and I am certain that if the Schedule remained as it stands on the Paper it would work a great injustice, and would not promote the cause of temperance. I see the head of the temperance

  1925
  party in this House sitting opposite, and I think he will do me the justice of admitting that on more than one occasion I have differed from some of my colleagues on this question. For this reason I hope he will be able to attach some weight to what I say. I sincerely declare that the question of reduction of licences in Ireland or in this country could not be satisfactorily dealt with under the terms of this Budget as provided in the Schedule. I hope when the time comes for this question to be generally considered it will be dealt with in a fair, all round, equitable way, and that men will not be put out of existence and deprived of their means of livelihood simply because they are poor. I hope the time will soon come when the whole of the question will be dealt with in Ireland as well as in this country. I know it is the fashion for certain people to say that the Nationalist party in this House is almost entirely controlled and influenced by the trade in Ireland.
  Mr. MOORE: Hear, hear.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: That is a confirmation of my statement, but I beg to give that assertion a most emphatic contradiction and I do not believe it is true to any extent. I know it is absolutely untrue as far as a great number of my colleagues are concerned. We are very much alive in Ireland to the necessity for the promotion of temperance, and whenever I hear any of my colleagues saying, with swelling breasts, "We are proud of our Guinness," I have no hesitation in saying that I am not proud of Guinness, either in Ireland or in the House of Lords, for probably he is engaged at this moment in chopping up our Irish Land Bill. As far as I am concerned, I say with all due respect that just as you have too much Rothschild in this country, we have too much Guinness in Ireland, and I hope the day will speedily come when the Irish people will be able to shake themselves absolutely free from the black grip of Guinness in Ireland, and, when they do that, they will shake themselves absolutely free of many of the things that oppress them and keep them down, and they will thus promote liberty and the progress of their country. I say that as one who has no particular feeling of prejudice or bigotry in the matter at all. The people who are well educated and well fed know how to take care of themselves, and they may do as they like, but there are many people in Ireland, as there are in this country, who need a little en-
  1926
  couragement and a little help to guard and protect themselves against what is always an ever-besetting evil and temptation in the land. In my opinion, much harm as landlordism and alien rule has done in Ireland, the Guinnesses and Jamesons have, in my opinion, done a great deal of harm also, and because I support this change in the Budget and plead for the poor people in the trade and protest against their exclusion, I must not be taken in any way as departing from those principles which I have more than once enunciated in this House, for the advocacy of which I have been abused, attacked, threatened, and intimidated. I still maintain those principles, and I can tell the hon. Member opposite that I hope, upon a proper occasion and under fitting circumstances, to promote those principles in an equitable way, and I shall be ready to back them in this House. In the meantime I am not proud of Guinness, neither am I afraid of him.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I have listened with extreme pleasure to the hon. Member for Clare on those occasions when he has given us one of those delightful and proper temperance addresses. The hon. Member, however, up to a certain point supports temperance measures, but he is very apt to desert them when a crucial moment comes.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the hon. Member state when I deserted, and whether it is not a fact that it was largely through the work which my colleagues and I did that the Early Saturday Closing Bill was passed and the Sunday Closing Bill was made a permanent Act of Parliament?
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I am glad to respond to the request of the hon. Member, and I am dealing with the particular Bill to which he refers. He did give that measure praiseworthy support up to a certain point, but when finally the surrender engineered by the hon. Member for South Tyrone was made which weakened the Bill so seriously, the hon. Member himself will not dispute that he advocated the acceptance of that surrender.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but, as he has put this question, he will perhaps allow me to answer it. What occurred was this. The Bill proposed to do three things, and because the hon. Gentleman could not get more he was anxious to have the Bill sacrified altogether. We compromised the matter and made the Sunday

  1927
  Closing Bill a permanent Act as well as early closing on a Saturday. If the hon. Member had had his way none of these things would have been done at all.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I do not agree with the history of the transaction which the hon. Member for East Clare has given to the Committee, and I think that all temperance friends in Ireland regret exceedingly that that Bill was so greatly weakened. I ask the Committee to remember what happened as regards this question of mixed trading only a brief year ago in this House. At the final stages of the Bill we found the Government ready and willing to capitulate to the Nationalist demand.
  Mr. FLYNN: May I draw your attention, Mr. Caldwell, to the fact that the hon. Member is hardly dealing with the Amendment?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in referring to the discussion on another Bill.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: The point I was referring to has a particular bearing upon the Amendment with which we are dealing, because it will be within your recollection, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, that the Prime Minister gave as a reason for the concession he made this afternoon that the existence of mixed trade in Ireland was a reason for making the concession, whereas all temperance advocates in Ireland say that is a reason likely to lead to an exactly opposite course. I am glad to find the hon. Member for Appleby (Mr. Leif Jones) agrees with me when I make that statement. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herbert Samuel) will agree with me when I say that in the Bill last year he yielded to the plea of the mixed trader and allowed him to continue to serve children. What has been the result? Seven publicans in Ireland have suddenly become mixed traders. There are glaring cases in Ireland which have sprung up during the last few months. I mention that as evidence of the perniciousness of the doctrine enunciated by the Prime Minister. I regret the concession given. I am satisfied it will clog the wheels of temperance reform in Ireland for many more years. I agree with every word said by my hon. and learned colleague, who has long been an advocate of all temperance measures. He knows the evil done by the 17,000 public-houses, which
  1928
  are really the curse of Ireland. We regret that, instead of getting some help under this Finance Bill, to most of the provisions of which I am utterly opposed, we are to have the power of the small public-houses for evil continued. There was one remark made this afternoon with which I beg to differ, and that is that there is a large element of goodwill in the smaller class of public-houses. So far as I know, many of the public-houses doing a mixed trade would suffer very little if they lost their licence, and, because of that, I regret exceedingly that the concession has been made to the Nationalist demand. Every religious community, including the leaders of the Roman Catholic community, every temperance society, and all societies leading in social work in the great cities of Ireland, have protested against Ireland receiving exceptional treatment from the Government in this respect, and I hope it is not yet too late for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to realise that the concession is being made in the strongest opposition to the most influential public bodies working for social reform in Ireland.
  Mr. T. SCANLAN: I venture to say that the hon. Member who has just sat down, in the remarks he has made neither represents the Roman Catholics of Ireland nor any other religious body, even in his own constituency. He may represent certain temperance societies within his constituency and the particular organisation which was responsible for his election as a Member of this House, but I must protest against his pretence of representing the Roman Catholic community in his own constituency or in any other part of Ireland. I most heartily support the Amendment on the Paper in its full sense, without regard to the concession which the Prime Minister has announced. I agree with the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that it would be foolish for any Member representing an Irish constituency to look a gift-horse in the mouth or to fail to recognise when a substantial concession is made that there is something for which to be grateful, and to the extent to which the proposals of the Prime Minister is a concession to Ireland I am grateful, but I regret very much to state that this concession is practically valueless to the Constituency which I represent. I cannot support the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) for reasons which I have heard given by one of the London Members—I think the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley)—who objected to this Finance

  1929
  Bill because the Government were incorporating moral principles in a fiscal measure. I take it the ground on which my colleagues and I oppose this Schedule is this: the Government have failed to take note of the moral aspect of this proposal in so far as it regards off-licence holders in Ireland. I do not say the Government are acting with anything like malice. I certainly absolve them from that, but at the same time, like hon. Gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the Gangway, they are absolutely ignorant of the condition of affairs in Ireland.
  I was amazed to hear the Prime Minister say that in his view the proposed tax would not hit at all 95 per cent. of the licence holders in Ireland. I speak, not only as representing my own Constituency, but with a certain knowledge of the general condition of affairs in Ireland, and I say that, in making such a statement, neither the Prime Minister nor any of his henchmen have any conception of the position of affairs in a large number of Irish constituencies, of which the Constituency I represent (Sligo) is typical. The population of the principal town in my Constituency happens to be 10,800. The additional 800, which takes us above the 10,000 limit, is due to the arrangements of the Prime Minister nor any of his hench-board which is responsible for industrial schools and for the insane population of a number of counties as well as part of the county I represent. There are in the immediate vicinity of Sligo and within the urban area, owing to the operation of these boards, a population of about 1,000. It will thus be seen that there is a peculiar hardship on the licence holders of Sligo. The population, in so far as it is an effective population, considered from the point of view from the holder of a licence, is under 10,000. Yet the licensed traders in Sligo, on account of the operation of certain boards in Ireland, who are responsible for placing within the unban area about 1,000 people, are to be mulcted in the heavy penalties which attached to an urban community the population of which is above 10,000. I wish to give the Committee a few figures. The number of licences in the town of Sligo is 80, and in those so small is the volume of trade transacted that to 74 the minimum would apply. The Licence Duty paid at the present moment by the whole of the publicans in this urban community is £836. If the new duty has to be paid by them, the amount would be £1,742, an increase of £906, or 108 per cent.
  1930
  If the Committee will look at it in another way they will find that if even the £5 limit were applied the amount which the Government would derive by way of revenue would be £958 as compared with £836. In other words there would be an increase of £122, or 14 per cent., on the amount derived under the present system of taxation. But if the concession which has been announced by the Prime Minister is applied, and if the £7 10s. limit is applied to Sligo, the amount which will be derived will show an increase on the present system of taxation of exactly 21 per cent. How can it be maintained by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as representing the Prime Minister, that this is just to licence-holders who are living on the bare limits of subsistence at the present time. That must be evident from the fact that they are doing so small an amount of trade that not more than 6 per cent. would get above the minimum scale. Can it be said there is here no real hardship for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible? I appeal with confidence to the Government to redress the peculiar grievances which the licensed traders in Sligo must suffer from, even if the grievance is redressed to the extent of making the minimum limit £7 10s. I say the placing the limit as high as £7 10s. in the case of this town, with a population of slightly over 10,000, is not meting out justice to them, and, as the Government have not yet committed themselves on paper to the concession, I suggest that the case might be met either by keeping the limit at £5 or by stipulating that the increased limit of £7 10s. shall only apply to town populations of 20,000 and upwards. I think the Chancellor of the Duchy will admit that here there is a very real grievance. I do not believe that any hon. Member of this House would suggest that an injustice of this kind could be committed with any show of decency in the name of temperance. In the principal town of the constituency which I represent, I venture to say we have temperance reformers who are doing far more real work for temperance than the bodies to which the right hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Campbell) and the last speaker referred. I assert that the work of temperance will not be promoted by inflicting an injustice of this kind. I therefore ask the Government to seriously consider, in view of the fact that they say they do not wish to subject the licence-holders of Ireland to peculiar

  1931
  injustice they cannot either keep the minimum at £5 or stipulate in the amending Clause that the new minimum of £7 10s. shall apply only to places where the population is 10,000 and upwards.
  Mr. MOORE: I notice when hon. Members below the Gangway speak very loudly on questions of this sort they talk about the injustice to Ireland; they speak of the grievance as an Irish grievance. My suggestion is that with them, in a case like this, Ireland means the Irish publican and nothing else—absolutely nothing—else. Hon. Members complain that we have said that they are under the domination of the trade. The hon. Member for West Clare denies that, but I may be allowed to have my own opinion, and that opinion, in which I believe all my colleagues concur, is that there is no party in this House so absolutely influenced by the licensing trade as the party to which hon. Members below the Gangway belong. I know a Protestant town in the North of Ireland—I thank God it is an industrious and prosperous town—in which there are only 27 publicans, and out of those 27 24 belong to the political faith represented by hon. Members below the Gangway. As a matter of fact, hon. Members appear here not so much in the interests of Ireland as in the interests of those who profess their political faith. The hon. Member for West Clare told us that he hoped in the next Parliament to take part in temperance legislation. Yes, but in the meantime he has made his peace with the publicans in his division, who threatened him, for he said himself he was intimidated by them, and that they threatened the withdrawal of their support. And now this great temperance reformer hopes to be in the next Parliament, having killed the publicans protest in his division by saying he is in favour of this special reduction in the interests of licensed houses. The Government are very anxious to avoid by-elections, but I am afraid that this step they are now taking will cause at least one resignation I will ask what will be the position of the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Russell) when he learns from to-morrow morning's papers that the Government have made another surrender to the Irish publican. He survived the surrender made last year by allowing children to be taken into Irish public-houses while they were excluded from English bars, and be has so far survived the action of the
  1932
  Postmaster-General in kicking out a postmistress in favour of a Nationalist publican. I want to know what the Ulster Liberal party are going to do on this question. I do not see any of them here. They were loud in their denunciations of the publican. I am satisfied they will do all they can to avoid a Division, but I trust that one will be insisted upon, so that we may know how far they are willing to ratify this surrender by a temperance Government to the publican's interest. Probably they will abstain from voting. In that case I trust that their absence will be noted and commented upon.
  The whole policy of the Government is a concession to the Irish publican interests. They dare not do it in England, because English temperance friends would get up against them. They do it in Ireland because the friends of Ireland would get up and applaud it. The Prime Minister suggested that if there was a bargain he had heard very little about it. The Member for East Cork got up and plaintively wailed that they had been very good sup porters of the Government, and had voted for the Land Clauses all through the Budget, and were being badly treated when they came to the liquor part. My hon. Friends and I are opposing the special concessions to Irish publicans, concessions not granted to the ordinary publican in the rest of the United Kingdom. We are representing a very great force in the North of Ireland, which is entirely opposed to this unfair discrimination, and which I can only infer is made for political reasons and expediency. When the hon. Member who last spoke—a Gentleman who has lived in Scotland, where he practices an honourable profession with great success and ability—tells my friends and myself that we are ignorant of the state of the country in which we live, I think that is carrying even Parliamentary imagination to a very considerable extent. My hon. Friends and I will vote for this Amendment, and oppose any concession which this Government makes under such very discreditable methods.
  Mr. T. L. CORBETT: I desire briefly and earnestly to join my colleagues in the appeal they have made to the Government. The hon. Member for North Sligo said that the hon. Member for North Londonderry knew nothing of the religious sentiment of Ireland. I think I would rather trust the Member for North Londonderry than the Member for North Sligo as to

  1933
  knowing something of what the religious sentiment is in Ireland. In the Church to which I have no doubt the hon. Member belongs, and every other church I believe throughout the North, South, and West of Ireland, there is only one feeling of very earnest support for the principle that we have been endeavouring to advocate tonight. We have had many surrenders by the present Government, but never one more absolutely cynical than the surrender made to the Nationalist party by the Prime Minister, and by his colleagues upon that Bench, who must, I am sure, feel deeply in their hearts how shamefully they and the cause which they profess to believe has been betrayed. The Nationalist party have been captured by the trade, and the Government have been captured by the Nationalist party. That is the beginning and the end of the whole shameful transaction. But the country will understand perhaps to-morrow what everyone in the House of Commons, to whatever party he belongs, understands to-night.
  Mr. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I should indeed be very happy if I could join in the universal appreciation of the concession which the Government has made in response to the appeal made from these benches, but I confess, as a representative of the City of Belfast, that I am not at all satisfied with the concessions which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is universally admitted, even by Members of the Liberal party itself, that this is not only a Budget but a Temperance Bill; that it is not only a financial measure, but that it is an instrument by which the present Government and the Liberal party expect to revenge themselves upon the trade in England for the attitude the trade adopted on the Licensing Bill last year. I have no concern with those party politics. It may be good business and good politics, or it may be bad politics, to use the Budget of this year for the purpose of paying back the publicans and the brewers for the opposition they extended to the Liberal party when the Liberal party proposed the Licensing Bill last year. I do not see why cities like Belfast and Dublin should suffer, and why publicans of those cities should suffer. Why should this obnoxious imposition render the position of the traders in those communities almost intolerable because the Liberal party want to pay back their opponents who fought them on the English Licensing Bill? The Constituency I represent has been hardly
  1934
  hit by this Budget. There are a number of traders in the City of Belfast who will be practically ruined if those proposals of the Government are carried into effect. I would like to give the House a few instances of how those new Licence Duties would work out in Belfast. I have heard the case of one public-house in that city which pays a licence of £50. If the Budget proposals of the Government are carried that house will pay £215. Another house which now pays £40 will have to pay £220, and another house which pays £40 will have to pay £205. I have the names and addresses of the publicans and their licensed houses. There are nearly 40 or 50 in that city. To my knowledge a great number of those publicans are making about £350 to £400 a year. You propose to raise their Licence Duty by £150. I would like to know what justification the Government can offer for robbing a man of £150 when he is only making £400. There seems to be a feeling, as I stated last night, that a publican is a human outcast and that he is engaged in some nefarious pursuit. The tax the publican pays sometimes provides the salaries of even Cabinet Ministers. The Government are taking advantage of a Budget of this character for the purpose of practically robbing the publicans in those two cities I have mentioned, and confiscating the property which those traders own. It is also said that the publican is a person who practically lifts all the profits he gets without working for it. I do not know any trade in the United Kingdom or in Ireland where the traders have so hard to work, where they have to work under such harrowing conditions, and where they have longer hours. The publican rises at seven o'clock in the morning and works till 11 at night in the tied houses in Ireland. He has to be ever watchful as to the conditions under which his business is carried on. He has to pay big Licence Duties, and he has to pay large salaries to those who are assisting him in his business, and, out of public-houses and out of the sale of drink, a large proportion of the revenue of this country is secured. I cannot for the life of me see why temperance principles cannot be consistent with justice to this class, and I do not think any high morality can be inspired by a desire to rob honest traders of what rightly belongs to them.
  It has also been alleged against the licensed trade in Ireland that they are the enemies of temperance. Only last year or the year before, voluntarily, the publicans of Ireland consented to Sunday

  1935
  closing and early Saturday closing, and to have the houses in Dublin, Belfast, and, I think, Cork, closed at 10 o'clock on Saturday night and closed from two to seven, instead of two to five, on Sundays. The late hours in the large cities in Ireland are the best time that the publicans have for their trade, and yet they conceded it in the cause of temperance. They also conceded the two hours on Sunday from five to seven, and, after having cut down their hours, and, after having, as in the case of Belfast, imposed large additions in the form of local taxes, and in additional Licence Duty under the valuation scheme some nine years ago, you proceed now to put on an additional impost of £150 a year to the Licence Duty already paid and to all the other limitations under which the trade suffers, and I think it is most unfair and most indefensible. Take the case of the City of Belfast, in which I am primarily interested. Nine years ago a new principle was introduced into the valuation of public-houses in that city. For the first time what is called in England monopoly value was added in the assessment of Licence Duties, and this new principle has made the position of the trade in Belfast absolutely intolerable. On account of it the local rates on public-houses rose from £9,000 in 1900 to £20,000 in 1906. The Licence Duty rose from £9,000 in 1900 to £13,000 in 1906, and the present Budget will so affect the publicans in that city that their duty will be raised to £27,000 after this measure passes, if it does pass. The result of this will be that nearly a third of these better class houses in Belfast will practically disappear. I do
  not see why the publicans in these large cities of Dublin and Belfast should be victimised because of any political differences which exist between publicans in Great Britain and the Liberal party. You have a right in the game of politics to revenge yourselves on your enemies, but the publicans in Ireland have had neither hand nor part in the controversies over the Licensing Bill of last year. The limitations and restrictions under which they suffer at present are greater in Ireland than they are in England and Scotland. The burden of the new valuation in the City of Belfast has made it impossible almost for traders to carry on their avocation with a very modest profit, and now you propose to take that profit away from them. It makes me regret once more the association of Ireland and England. We not only suffer from the fiscal relationship of a poor country being bound to a rich one, but we are now going to suffer because of your political and temperance divisions here in England. I again protest, and say that while I quite recognise that the concession made to the smaller traders by the Prime Minister is a substantial concession, it is not a concession to the decently conducted houses, and to the publicans in the large cities who have paid large sums for these houses. The proposals of the Government as they stand are confiscatory so far as these publicans are concerned, and I at all events express that measure of my dissatisfaction.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 64; Noes, 196.

  Division No. 769.]

  AYES.

  [9.2 p.m.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Keating, M.

  O'Malley, William

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, T.

  Philips, John (Longford, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Devlin, Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Dillon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Reddy, M.

  Fell, Arthur

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Field, William

  M'Kean, John

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meagher, Michael

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mooney, J. J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Gardner, Ernest

  Muldoon, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Ginnell, L.

  Murnaghan, George

  Sheehy, David

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Stanier, Beville

  Harrington, Timothy

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Young, Samuel

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Boland.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  nagh, Walter M.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gill, A. H.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Alden, Percy

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Rees, J. D.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gulland, John W.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Armitage, R.

  Haddock, George B.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Astbury, John Heir

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Robinson, S.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Barnes, G. N.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Beale, W. P.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Hodge, John

  Seely, Colonel

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hutton, Afred Eddison

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Branch, James

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Brigg, John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Snowden, P.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Jackson, R. S.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Summerbell, T.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Clough, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Toulmin, George

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Verney, F. W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Waiter (Dublin, S.)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lupton, Arnold

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mond, A.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Myer, Horatio

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Napier, T. B.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Elibank, Master of

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Erskine, David C.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Essex, R. W.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Winfrey, R.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Findlay, Alexander

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pointer, J.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Moore and Mr. Lonsdale.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Mr. W. PEARCE: I beg to move, after the word "premises," to insert the words "except in the County of London, where, until the new register be established, the duty shall be equal to a third of the annual value."
  I think the Committee are generally agreed that London on the basis of annual value is in an exceptional position. I
  1938
  think I can show that that is so from the position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. When talking of annual value the right hon. Gentleman said that he doubted if annual value over the country represented real value. In London itself annual value approximates to real value, and, if that is true, it is quite evident that on the Government

  1939
  scale London will pay a great deal more in proportion than the rest of the country. One of the most striking arguments used by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) was that, although annual value was not satisfactory as a basis, there being so many licences throughout the Kingdom under £60, it was not a matter of very great moment. But in London 4,752 full licences are of £331 average value, and, therefore, the contention of the hon. Member for Huddersfield came to me as a London Member with very cold comfort. There are figures fortunately issued by the London County Council which show, without question, what 50 per cent. of the annual value will mean on full licences in London. Without deduction this would amount to £836,000. Under the old scale London paid not quite £200,000, so that about £640,000 would fall to the share of London. Surely the House will agree that that is an enormous and unfair proportion. The Chancellor of the Duchy in making a concession, for which I thank him, admitted the case of London very largely by allowing houses of £500 annual value to compound from one-third of their compensation value. He estimates that throughout the country this concession amounts to £300,000. I am at a loss to know how these figures have been arrived at. I only wish they were like the figures that I have been able to obtain from London County Council papers. I should like to ask him how his estimate has been arrived at. Is it on the basis that every one of these houses can or will compound? "What division of the compensation value has he taken? Is it 11, 12, or 15 years? From all the inquiries I have made in London among large brewers I can find nothing approaching £300,000 as the amount that will be conceded under this head. I do think that the Government have very much unwittingly exaggerated the effect of this concession, which I, for one, do not think goes far enough. Be that as it may it only affects one-fifth of the fully-licensed houses in London. There are 4,472 fully-licensed houses in London—995 are above £500, which leaves 3,747 houses which for the first year—and it is the first year only I deal with—would be assessed at 50 per cent. of their annual value. I am quite sure that this will produce in their cases a very much larger sum, and I must confess as a London Member that I have been greatly disappointed that the Government, as they
  1940
  must recognise that there is a real grievance on the part of London as well as of the rest of the country, have not been able to meet us in the matter; and I, therefore, have felt it my duty to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This Amendment, in the first place, is open to the objection which I had to raise to a previous Amendment this evening, namely, that if adopted it would actually lower the amount of Licence Duty payable by certain public-houses below their present rates. For in London, as elsewhere, there is a certain number of public-houses which do now pay Licence Duty upon half their rateable value. Apart from that it is undoubtedly the case that London stands in a somewhat different position from the country as a whole, because of the very large proportion of highly valued houses in London. To some extent that was met by the Bill as introduced, which said, in the case of all houses above £700, of which there is a very large proportion in London, the licence owner in occupation might be assessed on the compensation value instead of the annual value. That would have made a very large difference in the case of a very large number of big houses in London, which, nevertheless, did a small trade in spite of their being built on expensive sites. The Bill proposed that they should pay upon half the annual compensation value instead of half the annual value, but representations were made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was inadequate, and that there was a much larger number of houses below £700 which stood in much the same position, and, in their case, half the compensation value was too high. My right hon. Friend then made a second concession, very largely to meet the case of London. He said that all houses over £500 a year annual value should have the right of being charged on the compensation value, and, instead of paying Licence Duty equal to half the compensation value, they were only to pay Licence Duty equal to one-third. The hon. Member (Mr. Pearce) asked how much is that concession worth in pounds sterling, and how has the estimate been arrived at. The estimate is calculated by the Board of Customs and Excise, and it has been found in times past, and I think it will be found now, that the officials of that Department of the Treasury are remarkably accurate in their forecasts of the estimates of taxa-

  1941
  tion. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Oh, oh."] Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give any illustration of cases in which a Chancellor of the Exchequer has made Budget estimates on the authority of these officials which have been inaccurate to any large extent?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Whisky.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am asking whether there has been in recent years any case—
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: There never was a Budget like this.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In which the estimate of a Chancellor of the Exchequer made on their authority have been to any large extent falsified?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman propose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should lay before us a revised estimate?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that while this Bill has been passing through the House a considerable number of the taxes have been altered? Many concessions have been made on different taxes, and the Mineral Rights Duty has been substituted for the tax on ungotten minerals. These facts alone would account for the difference in the estimated yield of the Budget at present as compared with the estimated yield when the Bill was introduced, and if the hon. Member had only considered for a moment—
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I forgot the football field.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Chancellors of the Exchequer of both parties have year after year from this Bench borne testimony to the skill with which estimates of revenue have been framed, and although I should be sorry to suggest, in a matter of this sort, where the elements are impossible of exact ascertainment that the estimate would be right to a shilling, there is no reason to suppose that the estimate that has been formed that this concession would cost about £200,000 to the country as a whole, of which about one-half would go to the benefit of London, is in any way far from the mark. I will point out further that next year it is to be hoped all the public-houses in London will be assessed on compensation value, and a further benefit will probably arise to a very large proportion of the public-houses in London
  1942
  from that cause. I may conclude by saying that if the hon. Member had left out all the houses above £500 which get the benefit of assessment on compensation value; if he had left out all the houses below £100 in respect of which the increase of duty is very small; and if he had limited himself to houses between £100 and £500, and then had proposed to decrease from half the annual value to one-third, the loss in that case would have been another £160,000. In the present state of the revenue, and needing as the hon. Member is aware a, considerable increase of revenue for the purposes of Government, the Government cannot accept such a large reduction of the revenue as that.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I hope that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pearce) will not suppose for a moment that a man like myself, who is seeking to get concessions for Ireland, is opposed to concessions for London. The contrary is the case. In making the demands which we have made for Ireland, is opposed to concessions for have fought the case, it is supposed that we have some connection with the liquor trade. I have no more connection with the liquor trade than I have with the leather trade; but I have come to the conclusion in the course of some small experience that the burdens that have been laid on the publicans are hardly justifiable. I believe that the drink trade is a diminishing one; I further believe that the values have already been extracted before the publican gets a look in—that is to say, you have allowed a state of things to exist in which before the publican can buy a public-house he has to put up two, three, four, and five thousand pounds as its value; you have allowed him to invest in what is a legal investment, and then you drop down upon him and say that you must have this extra tax because this is an unpopular trade. If it be the fact that the trade is unpopular, that is a reason why any man of honesty should stand up and ask that justice should be done to it. It is very easy to stand up for charity, it is very easy to stand up for religion, but it is only when you stand up, as now, for common justice that you are considered to be in favour of drunkards and lunatic asylums, and all the other rot and nonsense. I unhesitatingly say that it is no more just to extract these large revenues from the present day publican—it might have been all right in the time of Charles I. when this monopoly was created—than to lay an embargo on the Bank of England Stock. It

  1943
  might have been very good a century, or even two centuries ago, to propose this taxation, but in the meantime these institutions have passed into many hands; their values have been divided, yet all the time the Government are saying, "The vices have broad backs, I can get revenue off them; I can get nothing off the virtues." I know London within a quarter of a mile of this House, and I do not know very much more about it, but I fully believe that this attempted exaction will turn out, so far as London and the three Kingdoms are concerned, to be an absolute mistake. The Chancellor of the Duchy referred to the estimates of the officials of the Treasury and to their accuracy, but they have been dealing with normal conditions. When Mr. Gladstone proposed this Budget it was like Patterson's calculator, and they really could not lose an ounce. But you are dealing here with absolutely new conditions. I am in favour of fitting the back to the burden, but I think it is wrong to seize upon a trade like this because it happens to be unpopular, and suddenly clap two or three or four times the value upon it. I think that is what is being done in the case of London and in the case of the whole country. Remember this, that you have living in London a population I believe larger than that of Scotland, and much larger than that of Ireland—an intense population, with what we in Ireland call an amount of custom that you cannot expect anywhere else. Nevertheless, I, for my part, would gladly support this Amendment, because I believe that the Londoners are just as much entitled to call for relief as the men of Orkney or Connemara, with their scattered populations.
  I would beg English Members to remember that while we do not oppose concessions to them, I would certainly deplore the spirit that has been shown tonight by some Irish Members above the Gangway in references which they made some two or three hours ago. I have not been effusive in my compliments to the Government, and I remain a strenuous opponent of the licence proposals. I will say this, that whenever we get into close quarters with the Prime Minister we always find him most approachable. I do not think a higher compliment could be paid to any man than to say that his ears have always been open to our representations. I have no hesitation in saying, after what has been stated in this quarter of the House, that this is, I will not say bare
  1944
  justice, but an effort to take a heavy burden off the backs of poor men. I would not be a dog in the manger as regards London, and I should be very glad indeed to see this Committee meeting its case, and also the case of England and Scotland, because I believe they all want to be met. I believe these valuations have been jumbled together, and I think it would be an excellent thing if it were proposed that they should remain in existence only for a brief period. We cannot expect a man like the Prime Minister, who has the burden of this Empire upon his shoulders, to pay attention to every detail. We cannot expect that; I do not expect it. It is only when his inquisitors are going about trying to collect revenue, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others in the Revenue Department are only too glad to seize on any apparent source of Revenue, but in my opinion, I say it solemnly, this is not a great or a growing source of revenue. It is a restricted source of revenue. I rejoice at it, because of the virtues involved in the fact that it is a restricted source of revenue. I see in the Amendment the words are used "until the new register be established." We were told by the Government that there was to be a new register for the three Kingdoms, but to-day we have been informed that it is not to apply to the three Kingdoms. Yet a London Member, assuming that it did apply to the three Kingdoms, thought it necessary in his Amendment to use the words "until the new register be established." I want to know whether I am not right in saying that the Amendment is correctly framed in reference to the new register? The hon. Gentleman opposite is right, because he is now only asking for temporary relief, and I want to know what is to be the condition of London, England, Scotland, and Ireland when this register has been completed? I do not want to diminish the value on any concession that may be proposed, but I want an estimate on behalf of the United Kingdom when we are told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the officials of the Treasury never go astray in their calculations.
  I want to know—and you can take it either way, either a farthing or a thousand pounds—upon what basis is the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to either the revised Estimate which we are to get for the Report stage or the estimate that has been made for the purposes of the Budget. It is essential that we should know the basis of the Govern-

  1945
  ment's calculation, because how can you propose to make remission for one part of the country or another part until you know what is the deficit that has got to be met? Here is the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy on 3rd July, referring to the case of London. He said: "It affects a very large proportion of the houses in London"—that is, the new valuation—"and no insignificant portion of the houses throughout the United Kingdom." Now that is the United Kingdom, I understand, of Great Britain and Ireland, and not the United Kingdom of England and Scotland, because, of course, the distinction might be drawn. I interrupted him at the time, and put the very question so as to bring out the matter. I asked, "Is the right hon. Gentleman speaking of the three Kingdoms?" because I was in doubt which of the three Kingdoms he was referring to. Here is his answer—
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see how this bears on the Amendment we are dealing with, which is confined entirely to London. The hon. Member is really speaking about Ireland.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have not mentioned Ireland. However, I am most anxious to observe your ruling. What I am anxious to bring out is this: What is the estimate which the right hon. Gentleman makes of these taxes on London under what is called the existing state of things, and under what the hon. Gentleman opposite calls the new register. If he will answer me that question I shall then be able to form my own judgment and make my own calculation as to the effect in other parts of the United Kingdom. I heard the figure pronounced by the right hon. Gentleman as to the difference it would make in London. Now, if I am right, this Amendment only applies until the new register is established. That is the opinion of the hon. Gentleman opposite of his own Amendment. If the Amendment were carried, what is the amount of loss to the revenue estimated for London alone?
  Mr. THOMAS LOUGH: I hope that in supporting this Amendment no suggestion may be made that I am opposed to anything that might tend in any way to contribute to the advance of the cause of temperance. Therefore, if I say a few words in support of the Amendment, I hope none of my hon. Friends who are deeply interested in that great cause will think I am deserting, even for a moment, a principle
  1946
  to which I am just as much attached as they are. I would like to say also, although I represent a London constituency, so far as I know no publican there has ever voted for me. I have always had to face the publicans and fight the publicans, and if I have to fight them again on this or any other question I do not think I will be in any worse position than I was before. Notwithstanding these few observations, I cannot help joining with my hon. Friend, to whom we are much indebted, in the protest he has made against these Licence Duties being applied to London without some consideration for the case there. In every fiscal Bill where there is a proposal of this kind brought before this House I am strongly of opinion that the interests of the people of London are very inadequately considered.
  Just let me give a figure which has fallen from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill, to show how this case stands. It was the last observation he made. I will put it to the Committee, and then they will see how the matter stands. My right hon. Friend thought he was disposing of this matter when he said it will cost £150,000, besides the £150,000 that may be lost in London under the concession that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made. That is the defence of the Government against this proposal. Let us examine the figures, and I am going to accept the outside statement of my right hon. Friend. Now where are we supposing that statement is true? At present there is levied £200,000, Duties in London amounting to £200,000, and the Government propose to exact in London £838,000. [THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY dissented.] I rely on the figures of the hon. Member, who is a safe and cautious man, and has gone into this matter carefully, and has made his statement with the greatest moderation. Let the Government prove that the figures are wrong, and I will say with great respect to my right hon. Friend that it is really unfair to give an answer in an aside across the House, especially to a figure that has been already given in the Debates. The new duties will produce £836,000—that is our calculation. We ask that they should be reduced £300,000, leaving them £536,000—that is, 150 per cent. more than the Licence Duties are producing in London at present. Instead of £200,000 that London is paying to-day my hon. Friend says we are willing to give £536,000. Now I, say that he opened his mouth very wide when he made that offer. It is more than any other part

  1947
  of the country will contribute—that is, 150 per cent. What will the new taxes be? I understand that the duties altogether will produce something like two millions, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to get a million and a half from the increased duties. Let me suppose he gets two millions. Doubling the London contribution at present would mean £400,000. My hon. Friend says he will give £536,000, and therefore you see that this Amendment is not conceived in any narrow spirit. It does not refuse to the Government a proper contribution from London, but only asks the Government to consider specially the case of London. I ask the Committee to support my hon. Friend in the appeal which he has made. We had from the Prime Minister a most interesting speech dealing with a grievance in one part of the United Kingdom, and he promised to meet the difficulty. There are as many people in London as there are in Ireland; there are grievances as keenly felt by the population of London as any grievance in Ireland, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend to say whether he will not do something to meet this obvious injustice in London. In Ireland the difficulty arose from the fact that the valuation of public-houses did not correspond to the general average of the valuation of public-houses over the United Kingdom. My hon. Friends opposite, with their usual eloquence, persistence, and other Parliamentary arts, pressed that point on the Committee. They said: "We do not want anything unfair; we only want the special case of our locality considered. That special case is that our average value differs from the general average, and, therefore, your taxes will not press fairly." The Prime Minister replied that that was a point which, in a spirit of justice, must be considered, and he promised to meet the difficulty. I say precisely the same thing about London. The difficulty in London arises from the fact that the general average of the houses here is not the average over the rest of the country. The great proportion are not cheap houses at a low valuation, and that is the reason why a great injustice will be inflicted on London if something is not done. My guiding light in all these Debates is the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), and I should not have had heart enough to speak in support of this Amendment except for the fact that I find an absolute defence for the course we are taking in the excellent speech delivered
  1948
  by my hon. Friend this afternoon. He said, and the Prime Minister admitted the justice of his figures, that the present scheme presses with undue harshness, on houses that are highly valued, especially on houses of £300 or £400 per year. In London the average valuation is over £300. Can any other part of the country be shown where such a condition of things exists? That fact shows that it would be a monstrous thing if we did not bring the case forward. In illustration of the gravity of the position, I will quote a figure given by the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman stated that if we confined ourselves to houses between £100 and £200 value the tax on those houses would be increased from £300,000 to over £700,000 a year. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, in reply to a question of mine, said that the figure was roughly correct. He admits the grievance of the larger houses, and that is the London grievance; but he, in effect, said, "Let London wait; let us bend our neck under this wrong until next year or the year after, and then when the valuation is finished the Government will do justice." My hon. Friend is a man of short Parliamentary experience. Where will we be when the valuation is completed? It is never too early to carry out a just principle. I would ask my right hon. Friend to be guided by the spirit of the Member for Huddersfield's remarks, and not by his precise suggestion. Let him admit that the tax on these highly-valued houses is quite unjust, and not invite London or, if he likes, any other part of the country to bear it even while the valuations are being made.
  I think the answer given to the Amendment is very inadequate. Generally my right hon. Friend has a good deal to say for himself, but the obvious justice of the case was so great that to-night he was in difficulty. He said that his first objection to accepting the Amendment was that it would actually lower the duty in certain cases, and he compared that answer with regard to the London houses to the answer which he had given earlier in the afternoon referring to the whole country.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A small number of cases.
  Mr. LOUGH: But, this afternoon, when he put the answer forward with great vigour, it was because it applied to a large number of cases. There is all the difference in the world between the two. Here and there in London there might be a house where the duty would be reduced;

  1949
  but on that point I would say to my right hon. Friend that the day may come when he will be Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if then he manages to reduce an odd tax or duty, it will be a thing of which he need not be ashamed. The whole pride of the Government appears to be in increasing burdens. The right hon. Gentleman admits that his answer does not do, as far as London is concerned, however true it may be in regard to the rest of the country. There will be very few cases in which, if the Amendment were accepted, the duty would be reduced. On the general average, we should pay 150 per cent. more in London, whereas the rest of the country is asked to pay only 100 per cent. more. I will, therefore, ask my right hon. Friend to try and find a better argument next time he speaks. He then fell back on the familiar point with all Governments, namely, that the Amendment is badly drawn. If the right hon. Gentleman will meet the case of London in any way, we will accept his proposal. We will do as the Irish did. Although we would like our own Amendment, we will take anything we can get and be thankful. We are a most grateful people in London, but we get very little to go on with.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: £150,000.
  Mr. LOUGH: I have shown that, notwithstanding any participation that London may have in the general concession we shall pay a great deal more than any other part of the country. If no precise proposal is made to-night we ought, at any rate, to receive some promise from the Government that the matter shall be considered. In view of the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts), that leading representative of temperance, if he spoke would agree that the proposal of the Government will work unfairly in regard to public-houses of high valuation—let the right hon. Gentleman promise to consider the matter. I should be glad if he would allow such a promise to apply to the whole country. Why should we not have a promise made with regard to houses of £200 or £300 instead of £500? The proposal at present is to exact a duty equal to half the valuation. Why not make it one-third or one-fourth? It only means substituting one word for another. It is almost as easy as winking. I never knew anything so simple or came across an instance where it was so easy for the Government to do right.
  1950
  I hope, therefore, they will not persist in doing what I think is wrong. I believe, then, that London has been very hardly treated, and I do press my right hon. Friend to reconsider the somewhat unsympathetic answer which he has given to us, and see whether he cannot do something in the nature suggested.
  Mr. J. F. REMNANT: I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee for more than a few minutes, but as a London Member I would like to say a few words in support of the Amendment which is now before the House. May I, in doing so, first of all congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for the excellent response that ha has made to the call to the other side to speak up for London.
  Mr. LOUGH: The Amendment was on the Paper all the time.
  Mr. REMNANT: Why did you not come and speak before? It has escaped the attention of the Committee that in dealing with London, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was taking part in the Bill, with reference to the present assessments of the houses in London, admitted that London houses were assessed to nearly their full value. At the same time he called attention to the fact that the vast majority of the houses throughout the country were not, in his opinion, assessed to anything like what they should be. He put it at 50 per cent. of their proper value. See what that means? It is proposed to let this present condition of affairs run, so that London will be paying its proper amount under the Bill, whereas the houses outside London will be only paying 50 per cent. of the amount they ought to pay—that is, assuming the Chancellor of the Exchequer is anything like right. So that London, in a double degree, has a very serious grievance against the Government. I believe that the Solicitor-General, who had charge of the Licensing Bill and this Bill, must admit that London calls for special treatment from the hands of the Government with reference to this tax. I have a lot of facts and cases, which I will not weary the House with, though, if only we had the proper time to deal with this important question, the House ought to have those facts. I would only call attention to two or three cases in reference to the way in which the breweries themselves will be hit by this tax. In the case of the Cannon breweries something like £35,000 to £36,000 additional taxation will be paid. I am not forgetting the duty which their tied houses

  1951
  will have to pay. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts the facts he can have them. Meux's breweries will pay between £25,000 and £26,000 additional.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is the hon. Member taking into account the concession allowed to London with respect to the £500 houses?
  Mr. REMNANT: Yes, and the figures that I have given are rather under than over the mark. London will pay £800,000 instead of the present £200,000. That surely ought to show that London calls for special treatment at the hands of the present Government. What I object to, however, is the tone of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this important matter. He might have summed up the whole of his speech in two lines, which are, I think, well known to everybody in this House:—
  "I should not love honour ne'er so well,
  Lov'd I not vengeance more."
  It is that which has permeated all his speeches all the way through, and which has created this great distrust of the Government in dealing with this very important matter. I appeal to the Solicitor-General, if not too late, to introduce, if it is possible, some provision whereby London will be safeguarded until all licensed premises throughout the country can be put on a proper basis. I am quite sure if he does that he will only be doing an act of justice.
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: A very considerable sum is involved in this, that we should lose by way of revenue, and we cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Tower Hamlets (Mr. Pearce). I do think that the case of London can probably be dealt with separately from the case of other parts of the country. It is perfectly true that there is a considerable number of houses in London ranging in annual value from £100 to £200, from £200 to £300, from £300 to £400, and so on; but in no case, so far as I am able to understand, can you say that there is a difference in London with reference to any particular individual public-house that you could not specify with reference to any public-house in the provinces. I do not think that it is safe ground to go upon to say that London will have its duties increased from £200,000 to £800,000. I submit that is not a proper test as to whether or not hardship is caused to a particular owner or a particular public-house. I do
  1952
  not think it is a fair or a proper test to aggregate the whole of the duty that you get from all the public-houses in London. You should look at each individual case, and if there is hardship you ought to try to meet it. So far as I understand the matter, there is not a single case in London of an ordinary public-house—I am not talking about music-halls—which is aimed at by this Amendment that you could not parallel in other parts of the country. My hon. Friend moved his Amendment in a very reasonable speech, but he has cast his net very much too wide. There may be—I do not say whether there is or not—a great deal to be said for reducing the £500 still further, but not by this Amendment. I want to indicate to my hon. Friend, to my right hon. Friend who followed him, and to the Committee that this Amendment cannot possibly be accepted, because—
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Propose a compromise!
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: I am dealing with this particular Amendment, because I do not think you could possibly deal with the matter by way of compromise. I have already said that you cannot, differentiate between the case of London and the provinces. If anything is to be done—I do not say it will be or should be done—it is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am perfectly certain it cannot properly be done here. I would like to tell the Committee in a few sentences that the effect of the Amendment in the case of houses of the annual value of under £50 would be to actually reduce the present duty. I do not know whether hon. Members appreciate that fact. It is perfectly true. You must take the Amendment with all its bearings. Comparatively speaking, there is not a very large number of these houses. Nevertheless, the effect of the Amendment would be to lower the present duty of a house between £40 and £50, and whose present duty is £20, to £16 3s. 4d. I am perfectly certain the hon. Gentleman does not mean that at all. Let me take another category—a class of houses the annual value of which ranges from £50 to £100. Of these there is a very considerable number—314 according to the best estimate. The present duty in respect of these houses is £25 for each house. There is no difference between a £51 house and a £99 house. Assuming for a moment that these 314 houses are between £50 and £75, that is the lower part of the scale, you would

  1953
  actually be, by the acceptance of this Amendment, reducing the duty at present paid in respect of every one of these houses. Assuming that all these 314 houses were about £75, then the result would be that the duty would remain still what it is at present, £23 6s. 8d. I am sure my hon. Friends would not justify the Amendment on these grounds in respect of these houses. Now let us take the case of houses of £50 and from £50 to £100. This whole question must be brought down to one of figures. You have about 1,200 houses in London with an annual value of between £100 and £200. The present duty in respect of these houses is £30. Does anyone say when we are called upon to provide all this money that £30 is an excess duty for every house the annual value of which is £150? The present duty is £30, the duty which would be allowed to be imposed by this Amendment on a valuation of £100 would be £33 6s. 8d. Would my hon. Friend suggest that £3 6s. 8d. is a sufficient increase in duty to be put upon a £100 house in London? I am perfectly certain they would not say that.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Put it upon the stockbrokers.
  Sir SAMUEL EVANS: The hon. and learned Member is not always relevant when he speaks in Committee; he is still less relevant when he interrupts. I am trying to deal seriously with this matter. Take a £150 house—the mean between £100 and £200. The present duty on that house is £30. According to the Amendment you are only to increase it to £50. Again I think I would be right in suggesting that an increase from £30 to £50 is not too much. After £200 the duty allowed by the Amendment would be £62 12s. 4d., and when we come to houses up to £300 the figures are similar. They bear a little harder as you go up in the scale, but I submit to the Committee I have shown that the Amendment which my hon. Friends have put upon the Paper will not do. I repeat what I said: the net is cast a great deal too wide, and whatever the result of an appeal by them would be with reference to the reduction of the £500 limit I submit to them that the Amendment which they have placed before the Committee is one which the Government could not possibly accept.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: With great respect, what does the hon. and learned Solicitor-General know about London public-houses? He told the Committee as far as his opinion goes that there has been no
  1954
  special case made out for London as comparable with other parts of the country. Now I respectfully ask him what has been the source of his information? I respectfully ask him whether he has ever been inside a public-house in London in his life? I do not ask him to admit that he has publicly, but I assume he has not. I am quite certain the hon. and learned Gentleman has not consulted any representative of the London trade, and I am afraid he has not consulted any of his supporters representing London constituencies. [An HON. MEMBER: "The figures are indisputable."] The figures are indisputable, says the hon. Member, but when the hon. Member analyses literally the figures of the Amendment, and says that in some cases, literally it is true, it might cause a slight reduction upon the smaller houses if he forgets that in the aggregate the result of the Amendment if accepted would be to bring in a very considerable increase to the Exchequer. Secondly, he forgets that the London publican has to pay much higher rates, much higher wages, and has much heavier burdens in every way when compared with publicans in other parts of the country, and that is the foundation of the claim which the London members put forward for special concessions to London. The circumstances relating to assessment are exceptionally heavy in regard to London, and if it should happen that under this Amendment some of the smaller publicans should receive a little reduction on the Licence Duty, which they are at present paying, are they not well entitled to it when you consider the heavier burdens that rest upon them? But looking at it in the aggregate, does the Solicitor-General dispute the fact that this Amendment would bring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very considerable increase in Licence Duty, and, if that is so, surely it should be sufficient for his purpose. I wish now to refer to the attitude taken up by the Chancellor of the Duchy in response to the appeal made by the Mover of the Amendment. He had to admit that the position of the London publican is one of some hardship as compared with the provincial publican, but he would not admit that the raising of the Licence Duty from £20 or £30 a year, or from £60 a year to £100 or £200 a year is a hardship. He would not admit that represents a very serious and almost fatal burden upon his industry. The Chancellor of the Duchy cannot deny it,

  1955
  but he says we want the money, and he says that under the provision with regard to £500 we are giving London £150,000, and if we accepted this Amendment we would have to give away another £150,000. Assuming both those propositions to be true, it means, roughly, a concession of £300,000 to the London licensed victuallers. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says we cannot afford it. If we can afford to give £500,000 to the wealthy landed proprietors, surely we can afford to give £300,000 out of our estimated new revenue to the struggling licensed victuallers. The Chancellor of the Duchy has repeated almost verbatim what he said on a somewhat similar Amendment on one of the clauses before the Committee. First of all, he says this proposal will involve a loss to the revenue of £300,000 a year. We have been clamouring for weeks to check that calculation, which, we are told, has been prepared by certain Revenue officials whose accuracy cannot be disputed. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Licensed houses which have a value of over £500 may be assessed on their compensation value, and instead of paying one-half of the compensation yearly they will only be required to pay one-third. This concession, according to the estimate of the Board of Customs and Excise, involves a loss of £300,000."
  Why cannot that estimate be produced? If we can see the estimate we shall then see how it is going to be brought about. I think it is unfair to the Committee that documents so vital should not be produced. The case of the smaller man is infinitely more urgent than that of the large one, so far as London is concerned. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster further stated that:—
  "In the case of many houses in London of £200, £300, and £400 annual value, some reduction of the Licence Duty payable will be found to accrue to them under this new basis of valuation."
  The right hon. Gentleman tells us he already knows that the duty he is putting upon London this year is higher than it should be and higher than it will be. Is that not a reason for some concession upon this Amendment? It is not the custom when Amendments come from certain quarters of the House to follow their exact phraseology, and I am sure the hon. Member who moved this Amendment would not object to some modification of his words. What we say is that, having regard to the difference in the basis of assessment in London compared with the rest of the country, the licensed victualler is on a different footing to the licensed victuallers in any other part of the country. We do not often ask for anything for London, and
  1956
  this is about the first time that several London Members have been able to get up and speak with the same voice. There are forty-two London Members on this side of the House, and we have only to go into the Lobby together to bring about the defeat of the Government. We are not all here, but we are here in sufficient strength to convince the right hon. Gentleman that we feel keenly on this subject. Even if it does mean taking £300,000 out of this immense new revenue we can afford it. It almost makes one a Tariff Reformer when one hears we cannot afford a paltry £300,000 to do justice to a vast mass of struggling tradesmen, who have not a single champion so far as I can make out on this side of the House, and who have under necessity had to make some kind of political alliance with another section of the House. London to-night speaks with one voice on this matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I warn any representative of London who does not agree with that sentiment not to give ocular demonstration of the inaccuracy of my statements. Let him be nameless. As far as I know, London is speaking with one voice on this matter. The vast majority, at any rate, of the London Members on this side and the other side of the House are. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admits our grievance. Do not let it go forth that this great Free Trade Government, admitting the grievance and the injustice, and admitting that they have a vastly increased revenue in any event coming from the London trade, cannot afford to do justice even to a publican.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: The justice of the case of the London publican has been made so clear, and has been so well established, that no further argument on behalf of it is necessary; but, apart from the question of the justice of his case you have to consider the effect of the tax imposed by the Government upon the London ratepayer. I believe no one who has studied the subject would deny that the effect of this tax must be to reduce the rateable value of the public-houses throughout London. Those public-houses are assessed for the rates of London at something over £2,000,000; and if there is a 10 per cent. fall in the value of those houses, you impose upon the whole of the ratepayers of London an increased burden. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Government, but I believe that the practical result of their proposal will be that, instead of punishing the publican

  1957
  because he sells alcoholic liquors, you will be punishing every ratepayer of London, including all the teetotalers of the Metropolis. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) put the case well. He said the London publican had far larger expenses than those in other parts of the country, and that in a large number of cases the business was conducted honourably by small men who only earn a living by great stress of work and by conducting a legitimate trade in the best possible manner. I believe it was the hon. Member for Islington who interrupted the hon. Member and said that all London was not in favour of this Amendment. He will find when he returns to his constituents that he has made a very great error. I believe, with some knowledge of men of all sections and of all opinions throughout London, that in this matter it is not merely a question of the publican's right, but of common honesty to all Londoners, and, above all, to the members of a trade, to conduct their business in the most honourable fashion.
  Mr. J. McD. HENDERSON: This Debate might have been very much curtailed if the suggestion made to reduce the figure from £500 to £200 had been adopted with reference to the assessment compensation value. Why should a house of over £500 have the benefit of this valuation and the one of £490 not have it? That the valuation would reduce the rate of duty is admitted, and therefore for 12 months there is going to be a very heavy injustice done to someone. But the present rate of 50 per cent. has no real relationship to the takings of the house. You may find houses in Sunderland or Newcastle or other big manufacturing towns of a rental value of £60 which might be actually doing more trade than a house in London assessed at £400. How can you justify a case like that? I have taken out the figures of four or five houses, and have estimated the percentage of their takings. In the first case the duty was £80 and the percentage of takings 11½ in others the percentages were 6½ per cent., 9½ per cent., 7 per cent., and 6 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield said, there is only one way of arriving at a fair duty upon public-houses, and that must be based upon their trade facilities. Until you can get that you will never have anything that is not anomalous. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, said they intended to find out what the compensation value was and would translate it in the terms of annual value. I do not
  1958
  know how we are going to do it. I have a very shrewd guess that the effect of that must necessarily be to reduce it below 50 per cent. of the annual value. If that is so, then we are deliberately charging somebody for one twelve months or until this value is obtained more than ought to be paid. Does the House observe for a moment how ridiculously this would work out? There is nothing to justify it, and the only remedy I think is to reduce the £500 limit down to £100 or £200. All these duties are questions of amount. It is no justification for a tax to say that if we give in to logic and justice we lose so much money. That is not an argument at all. Either a tax is justifiable or not justifiable. We are all agreed that the present rates are too small. I do not think the Amendment of my hon. Friend will do. I cannot support it. It is really a question of quantum, and certainly the Government are losing a great opportunity if they do not do something to meet the main objection. The point I wish to bring out is that the one-third for London will not do. I appeal to the Government, and I say that they will find the passage of those duties far more easy if they will agree to give all public-houses with rents over £150 the advantage that they are now going to give to those over £500. The number over £500 is comparatively small. The number between £100 and £500 is very large, and it is those that will suffer. Take a simple case of a man with a rent of £450. That man at the present time is paying £50 duty. To jump that man from £50 to £245 is really too much. To jump a man from £50 to £100 is stiff enough, but to jump from £50 to £150 or £200 or £245 is too hard. I ask the Government to promise that they will consider the bringing of public-houses into line to such a point as will not entail any substantial rise in the present amount of the duty.
  Mr. IVOR GUEST: The burden of the taxes on the community by this Bill is very heavy, but may I remind the Committee that we are now discussing only one of the forms of taxation proposed by this Finance Bill. If the increase is heavy on the licensed property, it is heavy on other forms of property as well. It is admitted on this side of the House that all forms of property have to bear a share of the increase. One of the facts in connection with the present Bill is the possibility—indeed the expectancy—of obtaining concessions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Chancellor of the

  1959
  Exchequer believed the proposals to be an irreducible minimum, I daresay a good many of those Amendments would never have been put forward.
  I rose to say a word or two on the subject of sectional concessions. Here we have the London Members demanding a concession for their constituents. That is a very natural attitude to take up. But as I think the Committee represent the whole country we should be unwise if we paid undue attention to what, after all, is a sectional demand. I admit they have not been the originators of these sectional demands. Ireland has been in the van. Ireland, indeed, has initiated and familiarised the House with the idea that taxation should be regarded, not as how it falls upon the individual taxpayer, but how it falls upon the county or the town which they have in their mind. Once we admit that we have, in our financial scheme, to consider the relative ability of communities to contribute, and not the relative ability of individuals to contribute, we shall get on to very doubtful ground indeed. But an expression which fell from the hon. Member (Mr. Bottomley) really brought me to my feet. He said it was a great pity that as the Government had only a limited amount of money to give away they gave all the money, apparently, that they had at their disposal to the landed interest, and had forgotten the claims of London. The two positions are really totally different. In the first place, the hon. Member's demand is for a district. Our demand was for a class. His demand is that certain individuals in the district should be treated differently from similar individuals in other districts. Our demand was that all individual Income Tax payers should be treated upon the same basis. That is all we ask. In proof that our demand was not sectional, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he, in common with others, was circularised by the trade on this subject, and the favourable replies to that circular came, not from one particular district or one particular class of individuals. It was supported by people of all shades of opinion, representing all sorts of constituencies identified with very different interests.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I understand the hon. Member to say that the reason of that concession was that the particular incidence of the Income Tax pressed harshly on a particular section of the community owing to special circumstances. That is exactly my point.
  Mr. IVOR GUEST: The point was that these particular payers of Income Tax were assessed at a figure which did not represent their real interest. It was an overwhelming claim, and naturally the Chancellor of the Exchequer acceded to our request. I feel that the Government would be getting into deep water if they were to admit that the various sectional interests were entitled to special relief. I think the Amendment should be resisted.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: The hon. Member for the Holborn Division (Mr. Remnant) quoted the case of the burden which would fall on Meux's and the Cannon breweries in consequence of this taxation, and he was challenged by the Chancellor of the Duchy, who asked whether these figures did or did not take into account the question of the alternative assessment. I have the statement of the figures here. On page 64 it is explicitly stated that these figures are subject to certain qualifications, and that they do not take into account the optional assessment. That qualification has been taken into account in all these cases of hardship which are brought up. For instance, the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. J. McD. Henderson) apparently thought he had confuted me by quoting the case where the house of £310 annual value only paid on my figures Licence Duty of ten guineas. But if that house were situated in London it would still pay merely Licence Duty of ten guineas. Under Clause 31, Sub-section (1) that hotel would have got the advantage of the concession. In this way I venture to think that the value of the concessions has not been properly appreciated, and they affect the London case very much indeed. As a matter of fact, London profits far more than any other part of the country. There are 743 public-houses there above the value of £500, and if there is any advantage in their being assessed on their trade London will undoubtedly get it. That is to say, one-sixth of the public-houses in London are going to be assessed on the basis of the alcoholic trade, and I think that is a very considerable advantage for London to secure. After all, in London houses are very valuable. The cheapest houses you can get for compensation purposes average over £3,000. If anybody chooses to take a walk in the East End and see gin palace after gin palace now paying an absolutely inadequate licence revenue, I venture to think

  1961
  that he will not quarrel with the Government in standing firm, and asking that they should pay a very much higher proportion of the monopoly profits which are piled up because of the fact that the State restricts the number of public-houses, and that in proportion to population the houses in London are very restricted in number. The claim for London rests on two points. It rests on the assumption that all the houses are assessed up to the hilt. It is admitted that they are not assessed up to the hilt in the provinces. That is one of the grounds on which this abatement is justified. I have taken the advice of an expert in rating matters. I asked him to take the value as given for compensation purposes of 56 London houses. He knew the rateable value of the houses after the loss of the licences. I asked him to find, according to the ordinary practice of the assessment committees, the proper assessment. It turned out that at all events these houses were assessed 40 per cent. below what they ought to have been assessed at. That is in London, where they are supposed to be assessed up to the hilt. If you took that over the whole of London their rateable value would be £900,000 below what they ought to be assessed. (Mr. LEA: "Absurd."] These are the figures of a very high expert. In that case the London ratepayer is losing about £300,000 a year. The reason hon. Members laugh is that the trade value of these houses, portion of which you have got to take in for rating purposes, is very much above the rateable value. Hon. Members ask for a year's grace.
  Mr. CECIL LEA: We ask for justice.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: On the ground that if the duties were shifted on to the new basis, the basis of alcoholic trade done, the London houses would get a very great advantage. Are they quite so sure about that? I am not. Taking the minimum values of London houses as they are shown for the purpose of compensation, I do not see how you can possibly put the licence value, what is called the compensation value—that is to say, the value of these houses apart from site and structure and tenants' goodwill—below £25,000,000, and 33 per cent. of that would bring it up to £800,000. After all, I am not going very far wrong in my estimate of the site values of London houses as compared with the
  1962
  estimate given by Mr. Edward Buxton at the time of the Royal Commission. I therefore believe that it is wrong to say that the London houses are assessed up to the hilt. I believe that they are assessed under the mark. In the provinces I know that they are assessed a great deal below even the point that has been reached in London, and if they do get this change, which would be juster no doubt in individual cases, I do not believe that the revenue would suffer as far as I can see, and, therefore, I do not really see that they have got any ground for making this claim for a year's delay. In London and in the country around London the trade can well afford to pay this tax, and it is a just tax to demand. I do not believe that there is any ground for making this concession.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not intend to enter into the discussion as to whether the London publicans are more or less deserving of assistance or special treatment than the Irish. I confess that if I were to give my opinion on that point I might dissent from the views of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I rise on a much more general topic. There was an arrangement made between the Gentlemen on this side of the House and the Government last week that the Debate should end on Wednesday. We did the best we could to make a calculation as to the time we should wish to occupy—we regard ourselves, justly or unjustly, as the natural critics of the Government—and as to how long we should require to take; and we hoped to be able, and I think would have been able, to finish the discussion by Wednesday; and I am sure that everybody who has watched the course of the Debate yesterday and to-day will admit that the amount of time taken up by my hon. Friends behind me and on this bench has been a mere fraction of the time occupied by other Members of the House. I need not say I do not question the right of every Member. I do not make the smallest criticism. I rise merely to defend my Friends and myself from an accusation of bad faith, when it became clear, and rapidly became clear, to me that it was quite impossible to finish on Wednesday. How can you do it?
  We have not been allowed to get to the beer licences, to the population limit, to the question of the grocers, or to the minimum, and we have not been allowed to touch tobacco. It is now practically eleven o'clock on the Tuesday night. All

  1963
  these things, which are of the first importance and of the most controversial character, are now to be got, it appears, in the course of to-night and to-morrow. Everything that my friends and I could have done has been done to carry out the arrangement, and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit that our speeches have been brief. They really have not been many, and if it becomes realy impossible—and I think it is quite impossible to carry out this arrangement—I throw myself upon the general sentiment of the House, and I ask whether anyone on this bench, or any hon. Members on the benches behind me, are responsible for the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I content myself with that statement, and I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will think I am not going beyond my duty. I have made my conscience clear in the matter, and I can do no more.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I quite agree with every word that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman as to the arrangement having been strictly carried out. There has been a real endeavour made by the Opposition not merely to adhere to the law, but the spirit of the undertaking. I have not been present, but I am speaking from what my colleagues have told me of what has occurred during the past few days. I may say I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in what he said about getting through the Schedule before to-morrow evening. I do not think, whatever happens, that the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters are in the slightest degree responsible for any failure. If there be a failure I shall take it that there is not the slightest reason for holding the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters responsible for it. I think they have very strictly adhered to the arrangement which was made. I understand that the time has not been occupied in the past two days by Members of the Opposition in anything like the proportion it has been occupied by other hon. Members. At the same time, I would point out that it was all criticism of the Government and their proposals, and it was none the less effective because
  it did not come from supporters of the Leader of the Opposition. It was really very effective criticism, and was by no means confined to Ireland. It was criticism of a very general character, and I am not sure whether it was confined to the United Kingdom—at any rate, I think it was generally in support of the Opposition. All I can say is that I hope to be able to make a statement to-morrow night, and I trust we may now be able to take a Division on the Amendment before the Committee. Those who support it have stated their views at considerable length. I can only respond to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition by making another appeal, and that is that we should make a real effort to get through by to-morrow night. I think the Leader of the Opposition will find it better and more convenient that we should do so, and that it will meet the general views of everybody that we should come to a conclusion by to-morrow night. Otherwise, it would disarrange the business, and really would be very inconvenient to the majority of Members, in fact to Members on both sides of the House. For the moment I shall simply say that whatever happens to-morrow night the Opposition ought to be absolved from having brought about any further delay. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and those who support him to do their level best to bring the business in Committee to a conclusion, and if they find they cannot do so it might be possible to reserve one or two points either for the Report stage or for recommittal. I just make that suggestion, and I do not want an immediate answer. There is tobacco—suppose we were unable to get through tobacco. The suggestion was made that the Tobacco Clause, which was passed through inadvertence on a Friday, might be recommitted. Then we might pass it to-morrow, and we could go back on it on recommittal. It is only a kind of suggestion I am making, and at the same time giving them a full opportunity of criticising all those features which they object to, and which they think should be debated in the House.
  Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 201.

  Division No. 770.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Ashley, W. W.

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Land.)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Balcarres, Lord

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Banner, John S. Harmood.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gretton, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Renwick, George

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerry, Earl of

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Stanier, Beville

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John R.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Fell, Arthur

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Myer, Horatio

  Foster, P. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Pearce and Mr. Cecil Lea.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Elibank, Master of

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Alden, Percy

  Erskine, David C.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Essex, R. W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Armitage, R.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Callum, John M.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Ferens, T. R.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Marnham, F. J.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Massie, J.

  Barker, Sir John

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Middlebrook, William

  Barnes, G. N.

  Gill, A. H.

  Mond, A.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morrell, Philip

  Beale, W. P.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Napier, T. B.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Gulland, John W.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Branch, James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pointer, J.

  Brigg, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Rees, J. D.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hodge, John

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Clough, William

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornlay

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Robinson, S.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Cowan, W. H.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Seddon, J.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lamont, Norman

  Seely, Colonel

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  1966

  1967

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Wiles, Thomas

  Steadman, W. C.

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Summerbell, T.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Winfrey, R.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

  Toulmin, George

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Norton and Sir E. Strachey.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Mr. JOHN GRETTON Mr. JOHN GRETTON moved, in Scale 2—C.—Retailers' On-Licences, Spirits (Publican's Licence), to leave out the words, "subject to the minimum duty payable under Scale 3." This minimum duty is a new device introduced into the Finance Bill for the first time. Of course there is a fixed minimum duty in each class of licence. The Government now propose to set up a sliding scale of duty according to the population of the district or township. This is undoubtedly a new principle. We have not yet heard from the Government their reasons for introducing this sliding scale. There is only one reason I can imagine, and that is that the proposal has been brought forward at the instance of those extreme temperance advocates who sit behind the Government, who desire to stamp out, by means of this Budget, a very large number of the smaller licensed houses of the kingdom. That is undoubtedly the effect that this minimum scale wil produce. I should like to know why a licensed house in a town of 10,000 inhabitants is to pay a minimum duty of £15, where a similar house that happens to be in an urban district of 100,000 inhabitants—both houses being of the same value and doing the same trade—pays a minimum duty of £35. On what principle of justice or of right or wrong, or of public policy, can that vast difference in the minimum duty be justified? It is quite clear that the Government mean to do away with a very large number of the smaller houses in the country. The hon. Member for Lincolnshire said in the earlier portion of the evening that the new taxes were only abnormal and excessive in the case of the larger houses. He must have forgotten the proposals about the minimum duty, and I should like to point out how, in one or two cases, this minimum duty will work.
  Let me take, for instance, the district of Halifax. That large district has over 100,000 inhabitants. One part is thickly populated, but another is entirely a country district, which happens to be included in the urban area. On one side of the border there are two little public-
  1968
  houses which are serving the country district, and these little country public-houses will have to pay a minimum duty of £35, while at present they are merely paying £4 10s.; the result here is to increase the tax by £30, and these little houses have also to contribute, not to the rural rates, but to the urban rates. The same thing will happen in the case of a little country village I know, which has four public-houses which come within the urban area. Their licence duty will be increased from £4 10s. to £35. The Government themselves recognise these anomalies, because they have put down Amendments to make special exceptions in some districts, which shows that the Government recognise that their proposals are calculated to work very great injustice in such cases. Their proposal will work great injustice in the vast majority of the districts all over the country. We hear of the gin palaces and hole-and-corner drinking dens, but these little public-houses are well conducted places and are under complete police supervision. It means getting rid of them under the Act of 1904 as being superfluous. They are little houses where small clubs meet for the convenience of the men in the district, where they talk over the events of the day. There is no drunkenness there, and the trade is done mostly over the bar counter. These little houses are a source of very great convenience in those districts, and they make very small profits. They administer to the amenities and the comforts of life where they are not too numerous. This, in my opinion, is one of the most oppressive parts of the whole Budget. Up to the present the Government have not made out any case for this proposal, and it should be resisted by every means in the power of the House.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I have an Amendment lower down on the Paper which carries out the same idea as this proposal, and when I put it down I felt a certain amount of confidence that we should obtain a concession in regard to it,

  1969
  notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary to the Treasury told us that no concessions would be allowed. I feel a certain amount of courage in this matter, because I see that there is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, which has for its object the extension of the principle of this Amendment to Ireland. As there have been one or two concessions to Ireland already, I hope that in this case the Government will meet us on this point. I maintain that this minimum duty is quite a novel proposition, and one which is entirely uncalled for. It is also unnecessary, and will give rise to some of the most flagrant anomalies we have ever seen in this country. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has put forward the astounding proposition, that because the licensed victualler is already heavily taxed it does not matter about taxing him a little more. That is the principle upon which the Government are proceeding. They believe that to take a little more out of the rapidly diminishing profits of the publican will make very little difference. What is the motive of the Government in maintaining this minimum duty? Is it a portion of the vindictive policy they have put forward or is it really intended to obtain more revenue? In view of the injury it will do, and the anomalies it will create, the small revenue it will raise will hardly compensate for the difficulties which must ensue. My Amendment had for its object the omission of the scale itself. I do not quarrel so much with the minimum portion of scale at £5, £10 or £15, but when you come to the later proposals in the scale in urban areas with a population of 50,000 and 100,000 the scale is open to a great deal of objection. I take particular interest in this matter, because my constituency, Maidstone, is one which, in the number of its inhabitants, comes within the category of the scale. A very flagrant anomaly might arise in regard to this scale. Take two houses, both rated at £30, one situated within and the other just outside the borough boundary, whereas the one inside the boundary will be compelled to pay £20, its competitor outside the boundary will only have to pay £15. There can, under no circumstances, be any defence for this difference. The result of the scale will be to abolish a great many of the beer-houses. I have no doubt the hon. Member for the Appleby division
  1970
  would like to see them abolished altogether, but, because he has tyrannical ideas, I do not see why we should share them. I do not agree that all beer drinking is immoral.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the hon. Member's remarks arise on this Amendment.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I apologise; I was dealing with my own Amendment. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to answer, will give some justification for the establishment of the minimum.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member suggests that it is a wholly novel proposal and a rather absurd invention of the Government that the duties public-houses pay ought, in any degree, to vary in accordance with the size of the town in which they happen to be situated. That is far from being the case. The Licensing Act of 1872 laid down a scale of rateable values for new public-houses in towns, and declared that no licences should be granted in future to any building in any town unless at a fixed rateable value. Consequently a duty corresponding to that rateable value should be exacted from any new public-house in every such town. In a town of under 10,000 inhabitants the public-house cannot be of less than £15 annual value—if licensed since 1872; between 10,000 and 100,000, it cannot be less than £30, and over 100,000 it cannot be less than £50; and duty in all cases increases correspondingly. There is, too, a scale: for beerhouses; but I need not go into that, as the matter does not arise on this Amendment. You have more recently—in the Licensing Act of 1902, dealing with Ireland—adopted the same principle, and it was reaffirmed in the Act of 1908, so that the principle of dealing with public-houses with reference to the size of the town in which they are situated is by no means a new one. The House is familiar with the fact that wherever you go difficulties of this kind always arise, and a public-house just outside a borough boundary may pay a much lower duty than one 40 yards off which happens to be within the boundary.
  My hon. Friend asks why these provisions have been inserted in the Bill at all. Let me remind the Committee that the Finance Bill is very tender of the small public-house in rural districts. The duty in their case is practically untouched, a difference of about 2s. only being made, and that is

  1971
  because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, declared that he did not consider that these houses were in a position to pay higher taxation, and he did not deem it fair or just to impose any additional burden on them. But if that is so with regard to small houses in the country districts, it is not the case with regard to the smaller public-houses in the big towns. The duty they now pay is very inadequate in proportion to the trade done by them, and we have not thought it was expedient from the point of view of revenue or just to exempt these small public-houses from any increase of licence duties, although we do propose to exempt the corresponding class of houses in rural districts. Having, however, decided that they should not be exempted, we did not think it just to charge them all the same increasing duty, no matter what is the size of the town in which they happen to be situated. In a small country town a public-house cannot afford to pay the same duty as one in a great city with a population of over 100,000. Consequently we found it necessary to apply a scale, and the scale we propose has been carefully framed in view of the general circumstances of the different areas. We submit it with confidence to the Committee as a just scale. We think £35 quite high enough for the minimum in the larger towns. We are not quite so hard on publicans as the hon. Member seems inclined to think. This proposal is the complement to the exemption of small public-houses in the rural districts, and if it were not possible to have a proposal such as this it would be necessary to apply a higher Licence Duty to small public-houses all round, no matter where they may be situated.
  Mr. J. D. REES: What about the public-house in an area which is nominally urban but really rural, in an area attached to a small county town, but very much larger than that occupied by the town? So far as I can make out no provision is made in favour of a house so situated.
  Colonel WALKER: It seems to me that a working man requires two public-houses—one where he works and the other where he lives. I do not find jeers when I make those remarks to my working men. The working man has very often to go a long way to his work. In town he cannot carry his dinner with him because he has no place where he can leave it. In the country he can put it down by the side of the hedge.
  1972
  In a town he cannot, in bad weather, take his dinner in a handkerchief like the rural workman and put it down on the pavement, therefore he must get his dinner somewhere. Speaking from experience, I say the working man in a large town, when he goes into a public-house to get his dinner, gets with it half a pint of ale and a screw of tobacco for sixpence. The working man gets his dinner there very comfortably, and he gets it between the hours of 12 and 2. You have, therefore, to get into the public-house in town a very large number of men in a short period, and therefore it is distinctly a different class of house to that which is in what is called a residential neighbourhood. When the man returns from his work he may want to have a drink of non-intoxicating liquor. At all events, between the hours of 6 and 11 o'clock he can get all he requires. He may want friendship, he may want warmth, he may even want lavatory accommodation. The public-house, it cannot be denied, meets all these wants. A good many working men in poor districts in a large town have not got the comforts they can get in the public-house. The working man may want a warm fire and a comrade to talk to. Therefore you require two public-houses for working men in each town. I am rather familiar with the wants of working men. When they return to their home they do not want to walk a mile or a very long distance to get the refreshment they require. When the Government places a post office in a district they do not consider whether it will be a profitable establishment or not in that district. It, is a necessity, and I maintain that the public-house is also a necessity. It may not be profitable to the man who owns it.
  At the same time the public-house is a necessity for the people, and you have no right to handicap the smaller houses in a large town by heavy taxation. The working man of the poorer class—a very much poorer class than those who come here—require some place to which they need not walk a very long distance in order to obtain what they want. They have to walk three or four miles to their work and they want a public-house convenient to their residences. There are public-houses in large towns which are very seriously affected by this taxation. They will be wiped out entirely by the effect of this taxation. They may be compelled to go further to a house they do not care to go to at all. There are

  1973
  just as many classes, socially, among the working men as there are among gentlemen. It is not always convenient for working men to associate with other working men. A ganger will not associate with the men he is ganger over. Stevedores, porters, engineers, sailors, artisans, and members of Parliament will not associate together. You have to have public-houses of all classess in order to suit the convenience of customers who want to visit those places and not associate with men who are not of the same social degree. By this minimum duty you are inflicting, without doubt, a very grave injustice upon the lower class of working men.
  Mr. G. D. FABER (York): We have been occupied to-day in imposing upon on-licence holders an enormous duty of half their annual value. Is not that sufficient for one day's work? It has been well said that appetite comes with eating, and I am afraid nothing will satisfy the cormorant like appetite of the Government. They are not satisfied with raising this additional taxation, but they are driving them to desperation by imposing this minimum duty upon them. I would ask the Committee to try to realise what will be done by the imposition of this minimum duty on licensed houses. According to a table given to me—and I have no reason to doubt its accuracy—there are 5,768 fully-licensed houses in this country whose very existence will be imperilled by this minimum duty. These houses may be classified in this way: 104 under £10; between £10 and £15, 307; between £15 and £20, 1,144; between £20 and £25, 907; between £25 and £30, 1,078; between £30 and £40, 1,161; between £40 and £50, 940. Is it justice that the existence of these houses should be imperilled? Since the Act of 1904 was passed these houses have been paying their quota to the compensation fund. What are the Government proposing
  to do? While these houses are paying into the compensation fund at one fell swoop they may be wiped out of existence. Surely, however undesirable you may think the licensed trade to be, those connected with it deserve common justice. On 10th June the Prime Minister must have had the minimum scale in his mind when he said: "The Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly justified in regard to the liquor licence duties in considering whether the effect may not be to discourage the growth and, indeed, the existence of some of the worst class of houses." By the worst class of houses, the Prime Minister must have meant the smallest class of houses. As a matter of course, houses which are bad disappear on account of the conduct of the men who manage them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have thought that he was justified in putting out of existence the smallest class of houses. That class deserve justice as much as any other class of house in this country. Under Mr. Gladstone's Act there was no duty higher than £4 10s., and now you are finally parting company with that limit. In boroughs with over 100,000 population you are going to have a minimum of no less than £35, or nine times Mr. Gladstone's limit. I sometimes fear that it is impossible any longer to appeal in this House for justice to the licensed trade. There is a wider bar of justice. To that bar I appeal. Although your ears may be deaf, the ears of the outside public are not. If you cannot see the injustice there is a public outside that can.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 65.

  Division No. 771.]

  AYES.

  [11.45 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

  Clough, William

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cooper, G. J.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Armitage, R.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Branch, James

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Brigg, John

  Cowan, W. H.

  Barker, Sir John

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Crossley, William J.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Barnes, G. N.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Robinson, S.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lament, Norman

  Roc, Sir Thomas

  Erskine, David C.

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Essex, R. W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Evans, Sir Samuel T

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lupton, Arnold

  Scott, A. H. (Ashfon-under-Lyne)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Seddon, J.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Seely, Colonel

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Shackleton, David James

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Marnham, F. J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Summerbell, T.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Middlebrook, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gulland, John W.

  Mond, A.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Worrell, Philip

  Toulmin, George

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Verney, F. W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hodge, John

  Pointer, Joseph

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pollard, Dr.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hope, John Deans (File, West)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Horniman, Erslie John

  Priestiey, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Rees, J. D.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Winfrey, R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Norton and Sir Edward Strachey.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Renwick, George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Karris, Frederick Leverton

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Stanier, Beville

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Starkey, John R.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Keswick, William

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. Charles Scott

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gretton and Viscount Castlereagh.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Mr. H. A. WATT: In view of the speech made this afternoon from the Government Bench, I think it is quite hopeless to get any concessions from the Government, and therefore I do not propose to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. I commend that to the Chancellor of the Duchy for the Report stage.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved, in C. (Retailers' Licences), to leave out the words "a duty equal to a third of the annual value of the licensed premises, subject to the minimum duty payable under Scale 3," and to insert instead thereof "duty specified in Scale 4."
  I suggest to the Government at this stage that they should report Progress.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It was arranged a considerable time ago that every effort would be made to finish this stage of the Bill by to-morrow night, and if that is understood, and subject to that proviso, I will consent to report Progress. If it is more convenient to hon. Members to report Progress now, the Government will have no objection to that course being taken. It was agreed that the House should not sit later than 12 o'clock, on the understanding that the Debate is finished to-morrow night.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: That has been generally understood on these benches, and the right hon. Gentleman may take it as understood.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask when it is likely opportunity will be given to us to discuss the Tobacco Duties.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, a few minutes ago, said if the Tobacco Duty was not discussed to-morrow an opportunity might be found for the recommittal of that Clause as suggested originally. We have every hope that the Clause, as well as the remainder of the Schedule and other Schedules that still remain, may be disposed of by a reasonable hour to-morrow night.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES (IRELAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Local Authority to Strike a Bate for Advertisement.)
  From and after the passing of this Act it shall be competent for any corporation, board of town commissioners, rural district council, or urban district council in Ireland to expend annually a sum not exceeding twopence in the pound on the valuation for the purpose of advertising any watering-place or health resort which is wholly or in part situate within its area of charge, and if necessary to strike a rate accordingly.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry)The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry) moved to leave out from the word "Act" ["after the passing of this Act"] to the end of
  1978
  the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words:—
  "The council of any urban or rural district or the commissioners of any town not being an urban district may advertise the advantages and amenities of the district, or any part of it, or of the town, as a health resort or watering place by the insertion of advertisements in newspapers or by placards or otherwise, as they may see fit, and may expend money for the purpose, provided that the sums so expended shall not in any one financial year exceed the amount that could be raised by a rate of one penny in the pound on the rateable value of the district or town."
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: Will the Solicitor-General kindly explain the Amendment?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: It is purely drafting.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I think it is more than that.
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: No; it is purely a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I think the Solicitor-General will see that the Amendment just agreed to was not purely drafting. Under the Bill it is proposed to give local authorities power to strike a rate of 2d. in the £, but under the Amendment just made it is distinctly stated that the rate shall not exceed a penny. I think the Committee is entitled to know why the alteration is made by the Government. I should have thought the local authorities were the best judges of how far they should go in this direction. A penny rate will be quite inadequate to achieve the object in view, and I would ask that the amended proposal should not be pressed.
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The Local Government Board have given full consideration to the matter, and consider that all reasonable expenses will be met by the amount given. That being so, I am bound to stand by it.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: It may be right or wrong, but a radical change has been made in the Bill because it reduces the rate that local authorities may spend from twopence to one penny. Up till now I have heard nothing in favour of this

  1979
  except that it is the opinion of the Local Government Board. I have not received any representations on the subject, so that I do not know whether or not the local authorities are satisfied or not.
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: All I can repeat is that the Local Government Board have considered the matter, knowing what the local arrangements are. They are of opinion that the present rate of a penny is quite sufficient for the present Act.
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Hugh Barrie). I think that the Bill as originally drafted was a better one than the Local Government Board has turned it into. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College said that he had not heard a word in favour of the Amendment. The simple explanation of that is that nothing can be said in favour of it. The Bill was far better than it will be by the time the Government have done with it. But those of us who promoted the Bill agreed to the Amendment of the Government because we thought we had better have half a loaf than no bread, and we were given to understand that facilities would not be given for the passage of the Bill unless we agreed to the terms of the Government.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: In view of what one of the promoters of the Bill has said, I do not press my objection.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title.)
  This Act may be cited as the Health Resorts and Watering-Places (Ireland) Act, 1909.
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY Mr. REDMOND BARRY moved, after "1909," to insert the words, "and shall apply to Ireland only."
  Mr. HAY: Before this Amendment is accepted, would the Government be good enough to give the House a full explanation as to its purport?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I was under the impression that no objection would be taken to the last Amendment reducing the rate from twopence to a penny. As regards the present Amendment it explains itself quite plainly; the Bill is only intended to apply to Ireland.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Some of us do not understand why a Bill of this kind, which would apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, should now, at the last moment, be made by this Amendment to apply to Ireland only. If the Bill, as drafted, only applied to Ireland what then is the necessity for this Amendment?
  Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: The Bill, as introduced, applied to Ireland only. The title of the Bill is the "Health Resorts and Watering Places (Ireland) Bill" and it could not possibly, therefore, apply to England. It is in the exercise of the legal caution of the Government draftsman that this Amendment is introduced. It was necessary to make it clear that the Bill applied to Ireland only because the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) would not allow it to pass otherwise.
  Mr. HAY: It is quite clear from what has fallen from the hon. Member who has just spoken that the sooner he takes his place upon the Treasury Bench the better, because when we ask for information from the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Ireland he gives, if I may say so without disrespect, information that is misleading. I can only say, so far as I am concerned, that the passage of such Bills as this one is not facilitated by the conduct of the Government this evening.
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY Mr. REDMOND BARRY moved the following:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Expenses.)
  The expenses incurred under this Act by a district council shall be defrayed out of any rate or fund applicable to the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907, in like manner as if they had been incurred for the purposes of those Acts, and the expenses incurred under this Act by the commissioners of a town not being an urban district shall be raised by means of the rate levied by them under Section sixty of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, but shall be excluded in ascertaining any limit imposed by law upon such rate.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Bill Reported; as amended to be considered to-morrow (Wednesday).
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 20th August, Adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o'clock.

  Federated Malay States (Duty on Opium).
  Federated Malay States (Duty on Opium).
  Territorial Force (Army Service Corps).
  Territorial Force (Army Service Corps).
  State Insurance.
  State Insurance.
  Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Estates (Number of Licences).
  Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Estates (Number of Licences).
  Fishing Eights (Peebles).
  Fishing Eights (Peebles).
EARL OF DROGHEDA.
Petition of Henry Charles Ponsonby, Earl of Drogheda, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
EARL OF CARRICK.
Petition of Charles Ernest Alfred French Somerset (Butler), Earl of Carrick and Viscount Ikerrin, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
EDGWARE AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 2nd November next (The Lord Denman). (No. 190.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: Standing Committee negatived: The report of Amendments to be received on Mondaay next.

WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY PROTECTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, this Bill to which I now ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading has come from the House of Commons. The object of the Bill is to apply to Scotland the Act of 1800 for the
714
prevention of cruelty to wild animals in captivity. The important part of that Act is Section 2, which provides that any person guilty of cruelty to any wild animal in captivity or causing any unnecessary suffering to such animal is liable to a penalty not exceeding three months imprisonment or to a fine not exceeding £5. There is reason for applying the Bill to Scotland, because at present there is no existing Act for the protection of wild animals in captivity, and there has been from time to time cases of cruelty which the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has been unable to take up through the absence of any Act. Section 5 of the Act of 1800, which I wish to repeal, merely states that this Act shall not apply to Scotland, but in conversation with the Secretary for Scotland, Lord Pentland, I understand that it is probable that additional words will have to be added to make it apply to Scotland. A mere repeal would appear not to be sufficient, without further words, to make it apply. In the meantime, I would ask your Lordships to recognise the importance of applying this Act to Scotland and to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clinton.)
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, His Majesty's Government are entirely friendly to this Bill. There are, however, two other English Acts referred to in the Bill, and there are two corresponding Acts which apply to Scotland, and the Amendment which I shall put down, as suggested by the noble Lord, will ensure that this Act shall be sure and definite in its application to Scotland.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

IRISH LAND BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, before I move that the House resolve itself into Committee, I desire to make one or two general observations which I think may be for the convenience of the House, with regard to some of the Amendments on the Paper. Your Lordships will have observed that no small number of Amend-

715
ments, some of them of a very drastic character, have been placed on the Paper with reference to the financial provisions of the Bill, and I think it is incumbent on the House, having regard to its own dignity and to its customary procedure, to consider what course ought to be taken with regard to these Amendments. Speaking generally of these Amendments, though not exhaustively, it may be said that several of them propose to place a further charge, in some cases of a large amount—although that is not a strictly relevant consideration—upon the finances of the country; and according to the custom which prevails between the two Houses we may, I think, take it as certain that any such Amendments sent down from here to another place would by the authorities there be regarded as a breach of the privileges of that House. I might further point out that a great many of these Amendments would not only constitute a breach of privilege so far as we are concerned, but they go beyond anything which could be done in another place, because, as your Lordships very well know, provisions of that kind cannot be moved in another place except by the Government of the day. Consequently, in attempting to enforce such provisions we should be going, not only outside our own usual customs, but we should be arrogating to ourselves powers not exercised by members of the House of Commons. In those circumstances we have to consider what is the best course for us to take. In his speech towards the close of the debate on the Second Reading the noble Lord, whom I do not see in his place, Lord Curzon, drew attention to the fact that a great part of my speech in moving the Second Reading was devoted to this financial question. My Lords, that was purposely done in consideration of the facts which I have just been stating to your Lordships. It seems to me to be not entirely unreasonable that the financial bearing of the Bill should be discussed in general terms at such length as your Lordships may desire. I should have been glad if the debate on the Second Reading had been protracted with the view of that general discussion; but when it comes to moving Amendments, we are, I think, as your Lordships will admit, in a somewhat different position. Personally, and speaking for myself, I have no objection to discussing once more, if it should be once more, or afresh, if it should be afresh, any financial points that may arise in connection with the particular Amendments moved by noble
716
Lords, but speaking not as a member of the Government but as a member of your Lordships' House I do think that it would be unfortunate if Amendments of the kind I have mentioned were sent down to another place. What I have said does not apply to all the Amendments dealing with Part I. There is, for instance, an Amendment in the name of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Langford, dealing with priority, a great part of which appears to me to be outside what I have said. That is a legitimate subject for discussion, although I think there is one subsection of his Amendment which would without doubt have the effect of increasing the charge on the Exchequer. But, speaking generally, the effect of the Amendments is as I have stated, and I have thought it right therefore to call the attention of your Lordships to the matter.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am glad to hear the noble Earl the Leader of the House announce that he is quite ready to discuss questions which will arise on some of the Amendments to be moved by my noble friends on this side of the House, and to which he took exception, on account of their supposed encroachment on the privilege of the House of Commons. To my mind such a discussion would be most desirable. The financial provisions of this Bill really are of vital importance, and must to some extent affect our deliberations with regard to the remaining clauses. It seems to be quite evident, for example, that some of the proposals of the Government are likely to operate most prejudicially to the progress of purchase in Ireland. But there is another aspect of the case upon which I wish to touch. A great many of these suggestions were not debated at all in the House of Commons owing to the application of the guillotine, and it seems to me, therefore, quite clear that those who have given attention to this particular aspect of the case are well within their rights when they desire to avail themselves of the wider opportunities afforded in this House in order to secure an adequate consideration of that which they desire to submit to Parliament. I may also say this, that some of the Amendments which will be proposed from this side are Amendments which have been promoted entirely with the object of making helpful suggestions to His Majesty's Government—suggestions which, although we might not be in a position to impose them

717
upon the Government, are yet at least entitled to the most open-minded examination at their hands. I hope, therefore, we shall debate these Amendments. Whether the noble Lords who have put them down will think it desirable to press them to a Division is another matter, but what I do respectfully ask for them is that they shall be fully and freely discussed.
LORD CASTLETOWN: I would like to ask the noble Earl a question of which I have given him private notice, Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to give any priority to vendors to whom the subclauses of Clause 3 apply over those dealt with by subsection (2) of the same clause, or are future vendors under subsection (3) to wait until those vendors who have pending purchase agreements are disposed of? There is some doubt among many of us who come from Ireland as to what will be the procedure under these circumstances. If future vendors are to wait there is really no use in their coming to terms with their tenants, as according to the time which will be required for the pending purchase agreements to be disposed of they may have to wait for from seven to ten years for payment. There is very little difficulty in carrying through ordinary sales, whereas in some of the pending purchases there may be a great deal of difficulty about title, possible complications, arrangements to be come to; and although the agreements have been completed with the tenants there may be a number of legal difficulties in the way of the purchase, and consequently their completion may be postponed for a number of years. Under these circumstances, I think it is rather hard on a future vendor who has voluntarily deprived himself of his estate and tries to live on the interest in lieu of rent paid by the Land Commission, if he has to wait while the pending purchases are completed.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: Before the noble Earl the Leader of the House answers that question, I beg respectfully to say that I think he would find it easier to answer it if he would do so when the debate on Lord Langford's Amendment after Clause 3 is closed, because I think the debate on that clause will throw light on the point which my noble friend has raised.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am willing to take either course, although perhaps it
718
would be the simplest to reply generally now to the noble Lord, and, of course, any further light which debate on the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite may throw upon it may lead to some further observations from me. What the noble Lord asks is whether future vendors who come in under Clause 3, subsection (3), can hope to have their cases dealt with at all until all pending agreements have been disposed of. As the law stands at present, it is clear that they could not; they would have to wait their turn. But the House will remember what I said at the time of the Second Reading with regard to the arrangements proposed for the Estates Commissioners. Supposing that five millions in cash and five millions only, are available, which we are bound to assume so long as stock is at its present price, one million of that cash would be required for the purpose of sales through the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners, two millions would be devoted to those who will take cash and cash only, and the remaining two millions to those who were willing to take half cash and half stock; and it was hoped that a further two millions might be dealt with for those who were prepared to take stock only. That would make nine millions; but it is hoped that the Estates Commissioners would be able to deal with advances to the amount of ten millions, and if that hope is realised that would enable somewhere about one million of these future agreements, paid in three per cent. stock or cash at the discretion of the Treasury under the subsection mentioned by the noble Lord, to be dealt with in any given year. The noble Lord, I think, somewhat overstated the time when he said that future vendors and purchasers may have to wait, even at the worst, from seven to ten years. We should hope that the pending agreements would be cleared off before that time, and in the circumstances I have named we hope it may be possible for a certain proportion of the future agreements to be dealt with almost from the first.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I desire to point out that the noble Earl the Leader of the House has made about the most important announcement that has been made since this Bill has been in print. We now understand that future agreements are in some cases to receive

719
what practically amounts to priority over agreements which have been waiting for three or four or five years. If the members of this House had been made acquainted with that arrangement or that part of the scheme before the Bill was read a second time, my noble friend Lord Dun-raven would have had much more support against the Second Reading than he got last week.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
1.—(1) In the case of advances made in pursuance of future purchase agreements, three pounds ten shillings shall be substituted for three pounds five shillings as the rate of the purchase annuity under section forty-five of the Irish Land Act, 1903 (in this Act referred to as the Act of 1903).
(2) So far as respects advances made for future purchase agreements, the rate of interest to be paid by the Land Commission to the National Debt Commissioners under section thirty-six, and by the Congested Districts Board to the Land Commission under seventy-two of the Act of 1903, shall be three per cent. per annum, instead of two-and-three-quarters per cent. per annum.
(3) The National Debt Commissioners shall, in the accounts kept by them of the Irish Land Purchase Fund, distinguish between advances made in pursuance of pending purchase agreements and advances made in pursuance of future purchase agreements.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved an Amendment providing that, if the landlord and tenant so agree, these proposed alterations shall not have effect, and that "in lieu thereof the rate of interest comprised in the annuity of £3 5s. referred to in Section 45 of the Irish Land Act, 1903 (in this Act referred to as the Act of 1903), shall be such rate, not exceeding three per cent., as the Treasury may prescribe from time to time, and every such change in the rate of interest shall be published by the Treasury in the Dublin Gazette." He said that this Amendment was put down for consideration in another place, but owing to the use of the closure it was impossible to move it. He was glad that the Amendment which stood first on the Notice Paper in their Lordships' House should be one which did not directly interest landlords, but which did to a very large extent benefit tenants. That fact might, perhaps, tend to make those who criticised the action of their Lordships' House, and who thought that their Lord
720
ships were too much influenced by selfish motives, realise that in this Bill, at any rate, they were not approaching this subject in their own interests, but were trying to put the Bill into such a shape that it would be a benefit to the people of Ireland as a whole. It might be objected by the noble Earl the Leader of the House that this was one of the Amendments which dealt with the question of privilege. But he thought he had better deal with the Amendment first, and then try to argue that privilege did not enter into this case. As the Bill stood at present, the sinking fund remained the same as it had been in the past—namely, one half per cent., while the rate of interest was to be ra ed from two and three quarters to three per cent. The Amendment which he moved proposed for the present at any rate to retain the rate of interest as fixed in the Bill, but to vary the sinking fund and to make it less. He was told that the effect of this would be that whereas under the scheme of the Bill the total loan would be repaid in sixty-eight years, if the Amendment was adopted all they had to do was to reverse the figures and put eighty-six years instead of sixty-eight. There was no doubt that this suggestion would be extremely popular amongst tenants in Ireland. They cared extremely little whether their remote descendants seventy years hence might have to pay annuity a few years longer, but they did care very much what they had to pay at the present time, particularly when they knew that their neighbours who had purchased under the provisions of former Acts were paying at that rate. In proof of this he mentioned that in the Act of 1885 annuities were prolonged, and out of 22,247 purchasers under that Act, no fewer than 21,236 took advantage of the change which enabled them to pay a lesser annuity and extend the period. Out of 897 purchasers under the Act of 1891, no fewer than 878 took advantage of this provision. As to the question of the security of the State, he did not think that this matter of extending the repayments would be of any great importance when they remembered that at present the annuities under the Act of 1885 were extended to seventy-nine years. There was a provision in his Amendment which might make the time for the total repayments rather shorter, because if under some other Government, within the next fifty years, it might be possible to borrow money on more advantageous terms than

721
at present, the Treasury was authorised to vary the rate of interest. The consequence would be that the sinking fund would be larger, and the total amount would be repaid in a shorter time. As to the question of privilege, he submitted that this was not a question of taxation at all. This was a loan from the State which had to be repaid. He did not propose to vary the interest except with the consent of the Treasury, and all he suggested was that instead of a fixed sinking fund it should be a variable one. Their Lordships might remember that the suggestion to change the tenants' annuity and raise it met with very much opposition in another place, and it was only carried by a majority of thirty-two. He thought that if it had been possible to discuss this matter his Amendment might perhaps have been carried in another place. If the noble Earl the Leader of the House allowed that this Amendment was not a question of privilege and if it should come back from another place objected to after consideration, he did not think this was an Amendment upon which their Lordships could insist. But it would be a great thing if it could be submitted for consideration there. If, however, the noble Earl refused to consider it, he should begin to think that the noble Earl was afraid that the Chief Secretary might again fall a victim to the blandishments of the Irish Party, and that the noble Earl was anxious to save him from that temptation.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 18, after the word 'annum' to insert the words 'provided always that, if the landlord and tenant so agree, the foregoing provisions of this section shall not have effect, and in lieu thereof the rate of interest comprised in the annuity of three pounds five shillings referred to in section forty-five of the Irish Land Act, 1903 (in this Act referred to as the Act of 1903), shall be such rate, not exceeding three per cent., as the Treasury may prescribe from time to time, and every such change in the rate of interest shall be published by the Treasury in the Dublin Gazette.'"—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid His Majesty's Government cannot accept the Amendment, but before I discuss it I should like to say one word in reply to the noble Lord and the noble Marquess opposite, with regard to the absence of discussion in another place on this or other Amendments. Without attempting to discuss either the merits or the demerits of the system known as the guillotine, it is undoubtedly a fact obvious to everybody who read the debates which took place on this matter in another
722
place that the line which was taken by the Opposition—and it was quite within their right to take it if they pleased—was, instead of dealing with a particular Amendment such as this, to engage on each day in a general discussion. That was the line which was taken, and the result was that in the course of nine days in Committee very few individual Amendments were dealt with. It is not for me to say whether this Amendment constitutes a breach of the privilege of the House of Commons or not. In my view it undoubtedly does, but the noble Lord does not think so, and he must take the course as regards that which he thinks best. But on the merits of the Amendment I ought to say one word. The noble Lord lightly dismissed the reversal of the figures from sixty-eight and a-half years purchase to eighty-six and a-half. I do not know what he would say if someone owed him £100 and only offered him 001 for his £100. There are thus cases when a reversal of the figures may have very serious results. At the very best, the time of purchase would be extended to seventy-six years—that is to say, if interest were fixed at two and seven-eighths; but I am given to understand that the Treasury entirely decline to contemplate a longer period than sixty-eight and a-half years. That, as I think I said before, they consider too long, and it must be remembered that when we began first to talk about land purchase in Ireland forty-nine years was considered the reasonable and proper period. Stress has been laid on the undesirability of different tenants holding in the immediate neighbourhood at what are practically different rents from each other. I admit there is an objection to that, but it is one which may easily be overstated. In the first place, it exists to a large extent at present. There are no small number who purchased under the former Acts who are paying at a higher rate, and the same thing, of course, applies in the case of judicial rents. Under those circumstances, although we admit a certain degree of objection, we are not prepared to alter the provisions as they stand in the Bill.
VISCOUNT MILNER*VISCOUNT MILNER said that as this Amendment proposed by Lord Oranmore was not receiving much support from the leaders of the Opposition, it probably would not be carried to a Division. He ventured to think, however, that there was much to be said for it. With regard to the argument of the noble Earl the

723
Leader of the House that the Treasury altogether declined to contemplate repayment in eighty-six years, the noble Earl seemed to think that that disposed of the matter. As an old Treasury man he (Viscount Milner) fully appreciated the view of the Treasury. They naturally would prefer to be repaid in sixty-eight years rather than in eighty-six years, but he could not admit that that very natural and proper feeling on their part entirely settled the question for the Legislature. Looking at it in a common-sense way, he did not think that the extension of the period, though undoubtedly a drawback, was a drawback at all commensurate with the very great advantage which would arise from the fact that by the extension of time future purchasers would be put in exactly the same position as those who had already purchased in respect of the amount of their instalments. Personally he thought the Amendment was a very defensible one, and if it were possible to induce the other House to reconsider its decision on the subject great service would be rendered to the cause of the smooth working of land purchase in Ireland. He desired to make one other observation by way of caveat, and it was on the question of privilege. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment did not think the Amendment was an invasion of the privilege of the Commons, and he agreed with him. On the other hand, the noble Earl the Leader of the House said he was clearly of opinion that it was. Well, this question of privilege was one which he had done his best to study, and he was bound to say that the authorities were so extremely conflicting that it was, perhaps, rash to speak with any great definiteness on the subject. But since the subject was once more going to play an important part in the politics of this country he wished to be allowed to say at this stage that he could not admit that, where there was no question of directly increasing the charge and burden borne by the taxpayers the House of Lords was precluded from taking any action which might in some indirect way affect the Exchequer or the financial position of the country. It seemed to him that, if they were going to allow the doctrine of privilege to be pushed to this point and to admit that they had no right even in the discussion of Bills which were not Money Bills, to suggest Amendments, they would be excluding themselves from profitably discussing a vast number of measures which they had always
724
been in the habit of discussing. That objection might be raised on almost any important clause of a very large number of Bills—such as had been before their Lordships' House quite recently. As an independent member of their Lordships' House he felt rather alarmed at the tone already adopted on the Government Bench on this question of privilege, and must reserve to himself the right of protesting again if it was pushed to what he believed to be an unreasonable point.
THE EARL OF MEATH THE EARL OF MEATH said that as an Irishman who desired that this Bill, if it was to become law, should pass with the greatest possible case, and that its operations should be such as would be supported by the Irish population as a whole, he did hope that His Majesty's Government would think seriously as to whether they could not do something to meet the Amendment of the noble Lord. There was no doubt that an Irish tenant if he saw a neighbour paying a different sum from himself was very apt to think there was some injustice, and if they desired peace in Ireland every effort should be made that no one man should be able to say that he was paying more than another for the same amount of land and of the same value, but that the whole nation should feel that this Act was one which was for their benefit. He also agreed with the remark made by Lord Oranmore that the average tenant would be very pleased indeed to feel that the length of tenure was to be eighty-six years rather than sixty-eight. He did not believe there was one man in Ireland who wanted it to be sixty-eight rather than eighty-six.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I have no desire to enter into a general discussion on the subject raised by the noble Viscount who spoke from the Cross Benches. I have had occasion before now to state my views on the question of privilege. It is not our business as the Government of the day to guard the privileges of the House of Commons. Those privileges are in the keeping of that Chamber, and when any measure or any Amendment reaches them from here which they consider conflicts with those privileges, it is not the Government but Mr. Speaker and the officers of the House who call attention to the fact. My only object in mentioning the matter at all was that it did not seem right that we on these Benches should, so to speak, encourage your Lordships to send down to another place Amendments which may be there regarded as breaches of privilege. Having said this

725
once, I have no desire to even call attention on any particular Amendment as to whether it constitutes in my opinion a breach of privilege or not. Noble Lords opposite are quite as competent as I am to form their own judgment on that point, and they must deal with each in the way they think best. I merely called attention to the fact, and I am able after that, I think, to wash my hands of the whole business. I have only one more observation to make, and that is with regard to the merits of this Amendment. We are told that it is a most unfortunate thing that in any circumstances tenants should be paying different annuities or rents under the same conditions. It may be a long time to look ahead, and the tenants of the moment, as the noble Earl, Lord Meath, said, would jump at the proposition, but how about the time when one set of freeholders are paying nothing, and the others are paying this annuity during the intervening period between sixty-eight and eighty-six years? When that time comes you will have in an extremely acute form the difficulty of different tenants in the same circumstances not only paying different rents, but one set paying annuity and the others nothing at all.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I desire to make one observation with regard to the question of privilege which we have been discussing this afternoon. The noble Earl the Leader of the House has told us, and I think we have heard something of the same kind before, that it is not for him and his colleagues to defend the privileges of the House of Commons, that they rested entirely, I think he said, with Mr. Speaker and the officers of the House, and that if Mr. Speaker and the officers of the House decide that there has been a breach of the privilege of the House of Commons there is an end of the matter. Now, my Lords, I do not think that is exactly how things happen. What does happen, unless I am very much misinformed, is this. The Speaker advises the House that there has been a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons, and it is then a question for the House to decide whether it will insist upon its privilege or not. When that event happens the House is apt to be guided by the advice of the Government of the day, and what has happened more than once has been that the House has been advised by the colleagues of the noble Earl opposite to insist on its privilege, even when in this House noble Lords opposite
726
have been obliged to admit that the Amendment which had been inserted here was really one which improved the measure before the House. I do not think it is quite fair to place the whole of the responsibility upon the Speaker and officers of the House, because that responsibility to a very great extent belongs to the noble Earl opposite and to his colleagues.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY desired to say one word of a practical character, and to give a concrete case, which, he said, very often carried more weight than a theoretical one. Their Lordships would probably remember that in 1891 Mr. Balfour, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, introduced a Land Purchase Bill into Parliament. There were considerable alterations to be made in the Bill in their Lordships' House, and he (Lord Londonderry) was instructed that if he moved Amendments to the financial part of that Bill those Amendments would be accepted in another place. Those Amendments were inserted and were accepted in another place. Why? Because the Government of the day were anxious to have those Amendments, and they had that moral force which if exercised to-day would go a long way towards meeting these financial questions, which had to be raised in their Lordships' House for the simple reason that they had not been discussed in another place.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE said the noble Earl opposite had told them that tenants might not object to paying their small annuities, but that their descendants would object. He desired to point out with regard to that, that the whole of the new proprietors were not created the same year, and those who were created under the Bill of 1903 would become by degree freeholders in the same way that the men created under the new Bill would become freeholders. Therefore there would not be that friction arising from the difference in time of repayment. The noble Earl had said that forty-nine years had previously been fixed as the time of repayment and that the Treasury did not like to extend that period, but he called the noble Earl's attention to the fact that that had been increased to seventy-nine years. In the circumstances, however, he did not intend to press his Amendment to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill—
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO moved that the clause be deleted from the Bill. He said that he would take advantage of the very courteous words of the Leader of the House who said he did not think there was any reason why they should not discuss in general terms the financial aspects of this Bill. His reasons for proposing to delete the clause was that in the 1903 Act the tenant paid an annuity of £3 5s. for each £100 advanced. Under this Bill he would have to pay £3 10s. per £100 advanced. Five shillings might sound a very small sum, but to some tenants it was a very serious question, and this alteration in the annuity was likely to obstruct land purchase in Ireland. He was not going to talk about privilege. They were getting to the real cause of this change in the annuity. They were told that the tenant and the landowner must come forward and help the Treasury, in consequence of the state of the money market, by foregoing some of the provisions of the 1903 Act, and to enable land purchase to go on in Ireland. They were asked to help the Treasury to pay the loss on flotation of loans, and in the same breath they were told, with much emphasis, that land purchase must go on in Ireland. That had been often said both in the House of Commons and in their Lordships' House. This was the policy of the present Government. He thought that they in Ireland were really as good judges of the question of land purchase going on as the Treasury, and also as Mr. Birrell, and likewise his financial advisers. He noticed that Mr. Healy, with his usual habit of going straight to the point on a matter, said that he wondered whether the same set of liars were advising Mr. Birrell as formerly did. He did not wish to say anything rude, but it struck him that when one began to talk about the Treasury in that way, one began to make a joke of a very serious character. He did not wish to make a joke, but he mentioned that that was the way it was taken up by one of the Irish members in the House of Commons.
They were also told that the English taxpayer had pledged his credit to finance Irish land purchase. They had heard a great deal about the English taxpayer, but the Irish taxpayer paid exactly the same taxes as the individual English taxpayer. Class for class
728
he was taxed exactly the same. Ireland for the purposes of taxation was not treated as a separate entity. He was very sorry not to see Lord St. Davids in his place, or he would have commended that remark to his notice. This was the first time for forty years that any Government had proposed to increase the rate of the tenant's annuity. The uniform course in each Purchase Act had been to attempt to reduce the tenant's annuity. Under the Acts of 1885, 1888, and 1891 that annuity was reduced; in the Act of 1896 it was reduced from four per cent., and the Act of 1903 restored it to three and a quarter, the lowest figure so far reached. By reduction of the annuity two good things were secured—(1) it was made easier for landlord and tenant to come together; and (2) the security for the State was made better. In the House of Commons Mr. Redmond moved to omit this clause. That was debated up to the point when the guillotine fell. They had heard a great deal about the "will of the people." The "will of the people" was expressed by the representatives of Ireland, and in a House of 333 members the Government could only get a majority of thirty-five. He did not know whether that would influence their Lordships, but that was a fact they could not get over. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill knew as well as he did that if the tenant's annuity was increased it would increase the difficulties of carrying on land purchase; there were other provisions of the Bill that made it very difficult too. There would be the difficulty of bringing the landlord and the tenant together to make a bargain. The real truth would be that the tenant would have to pay more, and the landowner would have to ask more in order to cover this. They were not dealing with land purchase for the first time in their lives. They were well able to arrange these bargains between themselves, but then the Government stepped in and said, "The English taxpayer must not find so much money. You are to help him. But land purchase must go on."
He submitted that that proviso would not help land purchase to go on. He admitted that, in the present condition of the money market, if loans were floated there would be a tremendous loss; but what they wanted in this matter was patience, and not to be hurried on and told that they must sell their land, that the tenant must pay a larger annuity, and that

729
the landlord must sell and receive half stock and half cash, or cash 'or stock whether he liked it or not. The noble Earl the Leader of the House had divided the four millions into two parts. He said that two millions was to go for cash payments, and the other two millions for stock payments and partly cash. He had pointed out that they had not got that in the Bill, but the noble Earl hoped that the Estates Commissioners would see their way to carry that out. He used the word "hoped" over and over again. Well, they all hoped for the best, and they had been hoping for the best for a very long time, but they wished that the Government would put these things in the Bill and not indulge in hopes. Then they would have something tangible to go upon. He hoped the noble Earl would take that remark in good part. He did not believe the question of privilege came in when he moved to delete this clause from the Bill. He believed they had a right to delete a clause of this kind, but not to amend it. But he was not going into that, as the question of privilege had been well discussed by those much abler than himself. The feeling in Ireland as expressed by its representatives in the House of Commons was against this clause, and the feeling of noble Lords from Ireland was also against it.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 1."—(The Earl of Mayo)
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY said it might be thought that an increase of a quarter per cent. on a purchase annuity of a tenure only amounted to five shillings, which did not seem on the face of it to be very much; but the fact remained that if they took a quarter per cent. on the amount of money which was still to be advanced, taking the Poor Law valuation of the land yet to be sold, and multiplied that by the number of years in which that amount of money had to be repaid, it meant that the Treasury would take another £20,000,000 out of Ireland, if, of course, the price of the land to be sold remained the same as it was to-day.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl, Lord Mayo, in moving this Amendment, somewhat departed from it and entered into the question of priority. In doing so he made an observation which he hoped I would take in good part. I am sure I always take in that spirit any observations of the noble Earl, but it would be more convenient to discuss the whole question on the
730
Amendment of Lord Langford, and perhaps he will allow me to postpone until then any observations to be made upon it. The effect, of course, of the Amendment of the noble Earl—
THE EARL OF MAYO: It is not an Amendment.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Oh yes, it is an Amendment to leave out a clause. The effect of the Amendment would be to leave the rate of annuity at three and a-quarter instead of making it three and a-half as we propose. We assume, of course, that Clause 6, which transfers the burden from the Irish ratepayer to the Treasury, will be carried, and the effect of that would be, assuming that the loss on excess stock would amount to something like twenty-five millions, that the extra charge to the Treasury would be £800,000 a year; and allowing for the Development Grant would leave a charge of £640,000 a year. Well, the way the noble Earl puts that is that it is taking so much Irish money. Considering what the Exchequer is advancing, I confess that seems to me hardly a fair way to put it, and I am afraid, therefore, that there is no chance of our being able to accept the noble Earl's Amendment. Of course, we should have preferred, had it been financially possible, to leave the rate at three and a-quarter, but it is not financially possible, and therefore we cannot undertake it.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO said that the noble Earl seemed to take a very pessimistic view of the future. He admitted it would be very difficult, no matter what financial provision they made, to carry on land purchase in Ireland except at very great loss, but he did not think that that enormous loss would continue for ever. If it did the prospect was indeed very black. He trusted that things would be a little better than they were to-day, considering the present price of Consols. He would not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
3.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in section twenty-seven of the Act of 1903, advances for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts may, subject to the provisions of this section, be made in whole or in part by means of stock in the manner and under the circumstances for which provision is made by this section.
(2) For the purpose of carrying into effect pending purchase agreements advances may, if the vendor agrees, be made by means of the issue to the prescribed persons, in the prescribed manner, and subject to the prescribed conditions, of such an amount of guaranteed two-and-three-quarters per cent. stock, as, at the market price of the day of issue (as certified in the prescribed manner) is equivalent to the sum to be advanced if that price is not below ninety-two pounds (ex-dividend) for an amount of stock of the nominal value of a hundred pounds, or if the stock is below that price by the issue of such an amount of stock as would be equivalent to the sum to be advanced if the stock were at that price.
(3) For the purpose of carrying into effect future purchase agreements advances may, if the Treasury think fit so to direct, be made by means of the issue of an amount of guaranteed three per cent. stock equal in nominal amount to the sum to be advanced and carrying dividends as from the date of the advance.
(4) Stock issued in pursuance of this section as the equivalent of an advance shall, as between the vendor and the purchaser, be accepted by the vendor as the equivalent of the corresponding amount of purchase money, and a vendor, although he is not an absolute owner, may agree to advances being made by stock under this section for the purpose of carrying out any pending purchase agreements, and any person having power to sell under the Land Purchase Acts, although he is not an absolute holder, may enter into any future purchase agreement, notwithstanding that the purchase money may be payable in stock in pursuance of this section instead of in cash.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO moved to amend the provision in the clause which provided that advances might be made by the issue of such an amount of guaranteed two and three-quarters per cent. stock as at the market price was equivalent to the sum to be advanced, if that price was not below £92 for stock of nominal value of £100, or, if the stock was below that price, by the issue of such an amount as would be equivalent to the sum to be advanced if the stock were at that price. He proposed to substitute the figure "£88" for "£92." He said that this was one of the most important clauses in the Bill, which affected not only the agreements already arrived at between the landowner and the tenant and which were in course of completion, but also future purchase agreements. This clause practically meant the repeal of Section 27 of the Land Act of 1903. Under that Act all vendors were to receive the purchase money for their estates in cash, and were able to make their bargains with their tenants on a cash basis.
He would pass to the effect of the figure £92. In respect to purchase agreements, Clause 3, subsection (2), of the
732
Bill purported to give an option to a vendor to receive his purchase money in two and three-quarters per cent. stock, but if he did not like to exercise his option he was to be compelled to take, instead of every £100 cash, an amount of stock as would be equivalent in value to £100, if the market value of the stock was not below £92; but if the market price was below £92 the vendor, notwithstanding this, must accept stock as if it was at ninety-two, although, in fact, it might be only at eighty-five. The price of guaranteed two and three-quarters per cent. stock was eighty-five and a fraction to-day. Through the kindness of the Irish Office he had a table which showed the different prices that a vendor would lose on every £100 of purchase money. Supposing the price was eighty-four, he would lose 8·7; if it was eighty-five, he would lose 7·6, and so on. That omitted the cost of brokerage. But though the vendor lost if the stock was under ninety-two, he did not get the benefit if it was over that price. If His Majesty's Government put the figure at eighty-eight, the position would be a great deal better with regard to this issue of stock. The Chief Secretary, speaking generally with regard to this Bill on the third day of the Committee stage, said—
"But you cannot ask us to throw all considerations of pounds shillings and pence to the winds. You cannot ask us to repeat in the future the mistakes that have been made in the past. We are quite prepared when the time comes to consider any rational proposal that may be made on this subject, and not in any heated or angry spirit but with a desire to carry out this great system of land purchase in the best possible way."
The right hon. gentleman might not have been speaking on this particular thing, but presumably those words showed the feeling in his mind, at any rate, with regard to the vendors, and he (Lord Mayo) did not see anything to contradict in that. He did not wish to treat this matter in any spirit of contradiction, but they would undoubtedly suffer very much from this fixed figure of £92. He warned noble Lords from Ireland that behind all this was compulsion, and they must bear in mind when the suggestions were put forward in a very nice manner by the Chief Secretary, and no doubt by the Government, that behind all and overshadowing all existed compulsion.
Amendment moved—
"In page 2, line 33, to leave out 'ninety-two,' and to insert 'eighty-eight.'"—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE asked the noble Earl the Leader of the House to tell them definitely in the course of his reply why this figure of ninety-two had been fixed upon and put into the Bill. He knew the reason given in the Runciman Report, which was that evidence was placed before them to the effect that landlords would be likely to hold stock at ninety-two because it gave them three per cent. They had been cudgelling their minds a great deal to know who it was who knew so little of Ireland as to give such evidence. Every one in Ireland knew, and it was stated to the Dudley Commission, that trustees' securities invested at their prices at the time the evidence was given yielded £3 11s and even £3 12s. per cent. When everybody in Ireland knew that, how could anybody think that landlords were likely to willingly accept a three per cent. investment when under a tustees' investment, the strictest investment they could go in for, they could get from £3 11s. to £3 12s. He hoped they would have some justification from the Government of the figure ninety-two when the noble Earl replied.
THE EARL OF CREWE: As your Lordships all know, this provision is inserted in the Bill in respect of the block which has taken place, and its object is to hold out an inducement to vendors to take either stock or part cash and part stock in consideration of receiving a priority before the Estates Commissioners. But it is important to bear in mind that there is no compulsion put upon anybody to take stock at all. If any man thinks he cannot afford to hold a three per cent. investment, well, he must wait until he is entitled to be paid in cash.
THE EARL OF MAYO: "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick."
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am speaking, of course, of the pending agreements, and in those circumstances it is not reasonable to assume, as the noble Earl seemed to assume—I am sure he did not mean to—that some sort of pressure is being placed upon the vendors. I cannot pretend to know from my own knowledge how far the noble Earl who has just sat down is right, and whether it is the case that even where it is a question of taking half cash and half stock, nobody in Ireland could be found to hold on to a three per cent. investment. I think the noble Earl took a somewhat liberal view of what could be obtained in
734
large amounts by trustees; it is important, I think, to bear that in mind, because I have no doubt we could all mention particular cases where three and a half per cent. can be obtained. But when you come to very large sums which might be desired to be invested at a given time, I think the noble Earl was a little sanguine in the idea that it would be possible to obtain £3 11s. for the whole of the money. The figure 92 was undoubtedly fixed as representing a three per cent. investment, and supposing it to be realised, taking the stock at 86—which is about the figure one might venture to take it at—a vendor would stand, supposing he were to realise at once, a loss of £6 10s. That is to say, he would receive £108 14s. of this stock, which would be worth in the market about £93 10s. That is how it works out. If the noble Earl's Amendment were taken, supposing land stock to be sold at 86, the vendor would merely stand to lose just under £2; on the other hand, the Treasury in that case would have to stand a loss on excess stock to the amount of £12 10s. Again we should have been glad if it had been possible to lower the figure, but in the circumstances, and being more sanguine than noble Lords opposite that a fair number of people will be prepared to come forward and in consideration of this acceleration to accept certainly part in stock, and some we trust all in stock, we are not able to alter the figure.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO said that though the vendor lost if the stock was under whatever the figure was, he did not get the benefit of it if it was over that price. That seemed to him a rather hard-and-fast rule for the Treasury.
THE EARL OF CREWE: That is so, no doubt.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
LORD LANGFORD*LORD LANGFORD moved to insert a new clause to follow Clause 3. He said that where a vendor agreed to accept payment in stock, the estate should be dealt with in the priority in which it appeared on the stock payments register, so long as there were funds for dealing with estates of vendors who had not agreed to accept payment in stock. He felt rather a difficulty at the moment in proposing his Amendment owing to the questions that

735
had been raised in the House about the figures. He hoped that the Government, represented by the noble Earl and the Lord Chancellor, would give them the figures. He did not think that the figures given before were the same as the noble Earl had given that night.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Is the noble Lord speaking with regard to the figures I gave?
LORD LANGFORD: The figures that you gave just now.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The two millions of stock?
LORD LANGFORD: Yes.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The figures are the same that I gave before.
LORD LANGFORD*LORD LANGFORD said he wanted to put this from the tenants' point of view. They had fifty millions worth of land which they had hoped would have been sold. Many of the tenants were paying from three-and-a-half to four per cent, while waiting. Only on the previous night a noble Lord had told him that he had been kept waiting four years for his purchase money. His tenants had therefore been paying a larger annuity than they would have done if they had been vested—namely, three-and-a-quarter per cent, in their own holdings. This was not only a landlords' but a tenants' relief Bill. Noble Lords were not there only representing themselves, but a great body of men who had signed agreements under the Act of 1903, and whom they were bound to consider as far as they could. He was much taken with the answer which the noble Earl had given to Lord Castletown, but it appeared to him that matters were not as clear as they should be with regard to those who entered into agreements in 1903. The pending agreements had been increasing enormously up to the 15th of September. The clause that the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, had dealt with just now gave no idea—and there was no instruction anywhere in the Bill—as to how this money was to be dealt with. In dealing with the payments to the three respective parties under this Bill they wanted to deal with them in priority, and, he hoped, with, patience and without compulsion. He
736
believed the Government were going to give them five millions in cash. Out of that they would take one million for future sales in congested districts. There would, therefore, be only four millions a year in cash towards clearing off the fifty millions. But they were told that in every year there would be an additional eight millions paid off. What did that mean? That out of those eight millions, four millions would have to be accepted by vendors in stock whether they liked it or not. It did not bear that construction. It would be given, and they would have to accept. If they did not like it, others could be brought in. Under subsections (1) and (2) of his Amendment he proposed to have a register of priority. Having read to the Committee subsections (3) and (4) of his proposed new clause the noble Lord said unless they had priority with regard to land purchase in Ireland, he thought there might be injustice. He was sure the Government only wanted justice, but it was absolutely necessary to have the rule of priority in these matters with regard to the payments which the Government were about to sanction. Subsection (5) of the Amendment was very important. He tried as well as he could by that section to keep everything in its proper place, to see that there was no injustice and to give priority to those who came first. As to subsection (6), they were bound to have a fair and impartial rule for dealing with these cases. This was a Government measure, and they asked the Government to meet them in this case and allow them to amend the Bill so that they would not have to wait for their payments. Subsection (8) of his proposed new clause was entirely a tenants' clause. He had read to their Lordships the whole of the Amendment and he would point out what appeared to them the necessity for having stock registers. The object of the registers was to prevent the later class of cases being given priority. There appeared to be a very great danger that those who signed agreements in 1903 and who wanted cash were likely to be swept out of sight by men coming in and taking stock. He hoped the Government would look into the danger of the stock being allowed to swamp those who wanted cash payments, and the danger of the cash payments being indefinitely postponed, not only to the disadvantage and the detriment of the landowner but to the injustice of the tenants.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause:
'4.—(1) With respect to all advances in respect of estates, or for the purchase of estates, whether under pending or future purchase agreements, the following provisions shall have effect—
(2) A general register shall be kept by the Land Commission of all proposed sales of estates under the Land Purchase Acts, whether directly to the tenants, or to the Land Commission, or otherwise.
(3) Every proposed sale shall be entered in the general register in its proper priority, such priority on the register to be determined in manner hereinafter provided, that is to say—

(a) In the case of an estate proposed to be sold under sections one to five inclusive, of the Act of 1903, the order on the register shall be determined by the date at which the agreements for purchase were lodged, and the other duties imposed by law on vendors and tenant purchasers were discharged:

(b) In the case of an estate proposed to be sold under section six of the Act of 1903, the order of priority on the register shall be determined by the date at which the originating request was lodged, and the duties imposed by law on vendors and tenant purchasers have been discharged:

(c) In the case of an estate proposed to be sold under section seven of the Act of 1903, the order of priority on the register shall be determined by the date at which the particulars and documents required by said section have been furnished by the land judge.

(4) The Estates Commissioners shall sanction and make advances in the order of priority in which the estates appear on the general register, unless the Judicial Commissioner for good and sufficient grounds shall direct that any particular estate shall not be taken in the priority appearing on the register.
(5) If a vendor agrees to accept payment in stock, either wholly or partially, the estate shall be transferred to a stock payments register in the order in which his agreement shall be received, and shall be dealt with in the priority appearing on that register, provided that no such vendor shall be permitted under any circumstances to obtain a priority, either as to the whole or any part or the estate which his case would not possess if it remained on the general register, so long as there are funds at the disposal of the Land Commission for the current financial year for dealing with estates of vendors who have not agreed to accept payment in stock.
(6) At the beginning of every financial year the Treasury shall inform the Land Commission of the amount of cash intended to be provided during that year, and shall, as required, supply the Land Commission with cash to the amount aforesaid, and the Land Commission, so far as such amount of cash aforesaid shall extend shall in that year deal with estates the advances for which are to be made in cash before dealing with any estates the vendors in which have agreed to accept payment, wholly or partially, in stock.
(7) A vendor who has agreed to accept payment, wholly or partially, in stock, may at any time before the date on which his Final Schedule or Allocation Schedule shall have been settled by the Examiner, elect to have his estate restored to the General Register in the order of priority, as nearly as may be, in which it originally stood in such register.
(8) Where a vendor, with the view to carrying into effect pending purchase agreements, has agreed to accept payment partly in stock, and such stock
738
has been issued to the prescribed persons under the provisions of section three of this Act, the estate shall be forthwith vested in the tenants, but the purchase annuity payable by the tenants under section forty-five of the Act of 1903 shall not begin to run until the remaining portion of the purchase money of the estate has been advanced, and in the meantime the tenant shall pay to the Land Commission interest on his purchase money at the rate of three pounds five shillings per centum per annum, and out of such interest when received the Land Commission shall pay to the National Debt Commissioners interest at two and three-quarters per centum per annum, on the amount of the stock so issued in respect of the sale of the estate and shall pay over the residue of such interest to the vendor of the estate.'"—(Lord Langford.)
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD said the Amendment which the noble Lord had placed on the Paper dealt with an extremely intricate and technical matter, and he proposed to say a few words in explanation. There was a good deal in the noble Lord's Amendment which he thought might with advantage be accepted by the Government; on the other hand there was a great deal in it which if accepted would throw the whole work of the Estates Commissioners office out of gear. At present a general register was kept in the Estates Commissioners office in which all applications and deposits of agreements were entered in the order of presentation. They were dealt with, so far as he knew, in that order unless there were very special reasons given for dealing with the estate out of its order of priority. With this Bill, if it passed into law, an entirely new state of things would come into existence. Instead of having to deal with one class of estates the purchase money of which was to be paid in cash, they would have to deal with three classes—one, the purchase money of which must be paid in cash; the second, in which the price must be paid in cash and stock, according to the option of the vendor; the third being purchases in which payment would be in stock alone. The ordinary procedure would be to enter upon a register which now existed all applications to sell whether coming under the Act or not, and then to create three subsidiary registers under that general register—namely, a register for all payments in cash, a register of payments partly in cash and partly in stock, and a register, in which the payments were to be made in stock. Those several registers would be compiled from the general register, and the compilations would be in the order

739
of priority. For instance, a person who claimed to be paid in cash would have his name entered in the cash register. Then would come a vendor who desired to be paid in cash and stock. His name would be entered in the cash and stock register, and vendors desirous of being paid in stock alone would be entered in the stock register. All those applications would naturally have priority in the order in which they were entered in their particular registers. For instance, a person entered in the cash register would have his case dealt with in the order of his priority in that register. In like manner a person in the cash and stock register would have his case dealt with in the order of priority of entry in the part-cash-part-stock register. No disadvantage would accrue to any one from this registration in separate registers because his case would be dealt with in its own priority, and he would get his payment out of a separate allotment of money.
He thought the noble Lord's object could be secured if their Lordships accepted subsections (1) and (2) of his proposed new clause, and then for subsection (3) accepted a provision running thus— "Every proposed sale shall be entered in the general register in the order of time at which the agreements were lodged or at which the request under Section 6 of the Act was deposited; or the particulars and documents required under Section 7 were supplied." Subsidiary to such general register there should be three registers, provided for by a subsection which should run, "There shall be three supplementary registers according as the vendor desires payment to be made to him in cash or part in cash and part in stock or wholly in stock." The entries of estates in each such subsidiary register should be made according to their priority as indicated above, but thereafter priority of treatment should be that of the supplemental register in which the estate appears. Then subsection (4) should read something like this: "In the case of estates entered in each supplemental register the priority should be as follows:" incorporating paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of subsection (3) of the noble Lord's proposed new clause, which he thought had introduced an excellent improvement on the existing practice. The noble Lord said that payment should be given not only in the order of time of entry, but that it should also be determined by the date on which the duties imposed by the law on vendors were
740
discharged. Not only should the Estates Commissioners have regard to the time the papers were deposited, but also to the time when all the legal formalities had been concluded. It often happened that a vendor deposited his papers, say on the first of January, and then did not trouble himself any further for some time. Perhaps his solicitor was careless and allowed several months or perhaps a year to elapse, and no action was taken. On the other hand, the vendor who deposited his papers, say, on the first of February, and took care that his solicitor did his work, might have, all the duties imposed by the law concluded in six months time and then ask to have his case passed through. It would be a monstrous hardship that the latter vendor should be kept waiting for his money because the other vendor was negligent. If they did not place a premium upon the speedy and accurate discharge of duties in the matter they would have a block, and the result would be complaints against the Estates Commissioners Office. Fresh demands might probably be made for additional establishment charges, whereas, the real cause of the delays lay in the carelessness of the applicants themselves. Therefore he thought that the noble Lord had made a most valuable suggestion, and one that should be adopted.
With regard to subsection (6) of the Amendment he suggested that it should read, "At the beginning of every financial year the Treasury shall inform the Land Commission of the amount of cash intended to be provided during that year, and shall apportion that amount between advances to be made entirely in cash and advances to be made partly in cash and advances to be made on account of the Congested Districts Board." That procedure would, if adopted, introduce a simple organisation in the, Estates Commissioners Office, and no vendor would be treated out of his proper order, and the order in which he would be treated would largely depend upon his own punctuality in discharging obligations which the law imposed upon him. The noble Lord in subsection (7) of his Amendment provided that if at some time after the procedure had advanced a vendor became dissatisfied with what had been done, he might if he so desired have his estate taken out of the subsidiary register and restored to the general register. If that were allowed, great confusion would result, for the general

741
register would, as an indication of priority, have been superseded by the subsidiary registers; and steps might have been taken accordingly which could not be recalled. The proposal in subsection (8) of the Amendment was also impracticable. What it meant was that a vendor should make his application to be paid partly in stock and partly in cash, and when the proceedings in his case had gone sufficiently far to enable the Judicial Commissioner to proceed to a distribution, he should get by way of advance the stock which was due to him while the cash would remain unpaid perhaps from three to five years until the Treasury were in funds, he in the meantime receiving three and three-quarter per cent. interest on it instead of the three and a-half per cent. which the law allowed. On the other hand the tenant would no doubt have his annuity reduced to three and a-quarter, but he would be kept out of his vesting order and the time for the commencement of his annuity. So far from being in the interests of the Irish tenants he thought this proposal would more be in the interests of the Irish landlords who having got their stock, might dispose of it and invest the proceeds at say four per cent., and at the same time get three and a-quarter per cent. interest on the remainder. He hoped the noble Lord would not press this part of his Amendment, but if he did press it, he for one, while he greatly approved of a considerable portion of his Amendment, would be compelled to oppose him.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord who introduced this Amendment dealt with this exceedingly complicated matter, if he will allow me to say so, in a very clear and distinct way. The noble Lord behind me, Lord MacDonnell, as is his invariable custom, also dealt with the matter in a most lucid manner; but at the same time I think he would have assisted the deliberations of your Lordships' House as a whole if he had placed on paper his suggestions on the manner in which he thought the noble Lord's Amendment might be improved.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I intended to say that if permission were given to me I would bring up a clause on Report.
THE EARL OF CREWE: It undoubtedly
742
does make discussion of the matter more difficult when we have not before us, in settled terms, the very important modifications which Lord MacDonnell proposes to make in the Amendment. As a matter of fact, the noble Lord behind me proposes to alter the Amendment in some most important particulars. What Lord Langford proposes to do is to revert to the practice which obtained in the time of the late Government, when all applications were entered and proposed to be dealt with in the order in which the applications were made. Under the regulations which were issued in July, 1905, in the time of the Viceroyalty of Lord Dudley, vendors of land were not to be placed at a disadvantage as compared with vendors under previous Acts. The noble Lord proposes to have three registers, one dealing with direct sales, the other dealing with those under paragraph (b) of subsection (3), and the other with the sales of the Land Commission under paragraph (c), and he proposes, I understand, that all those shall be dealt with in the order of simple priority, without any reference to the one or the other. In the first place, the noble Lord proposes that the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board should have no power of dealing separately, and even pari passu, with their own transactions in priority to the direct agreements. The position of the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board, if the noble Lord's Amendment were carried, would be one of real inconvenience, and I do not think that it is difficult to show that their position does differ from that of ordinary direct transactions between landlord and tenant. They buy an estate for the purpose of improving it. They redistribute some of the holdings and they create new holdings, and surely it is of real importance that they should be able to get to work at this particular business as soon as possible, and not have an estate lying on their hands—as might be the case under the Amendment of the noble Lord—for five years or even more. If advances had to be made in all cases of direct sales which had priority in time over some transactions with which the Estates Commissioners were concerned, that, of course, would be the case. There is a block as we all know of fifty millions in this matter of the direct sales, and the delay caused to the transactions of the Estates Commissioners would be very great indeed.
LORD LANGFORD: But the fifty millions have nothing to do with the sales of the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners. These are direct sales between landlord and tenant.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes; but I understand the noble Lord desires that all those direct sales which may have priority of time over sales of the Estates Commissioners should be dealt with before they can deal with those referred to in subsection (4). That subsection says—
"The Estates Commissioners shall sanction and make advances in the order of priority in which the estates appear on the general register, unless the Judicial Commissioner, for good and sufficient grounds, shall direct that any particular estate shall not be taken in the priority appearing on the register."
I think if the noble Lord examines those words he will see that in their literal meaning they would mean a complete stoppage of the work of the Estates Commissioners. Supposing an application had been lodged and had to be postponed for some purpose, some difficulty of title, some question of turf or some matter of the kind. As the words stand, it would literally mean that all subsequent agreements would have to be hung up until this one was dealt with, even though there might be some hitch which would force it to stand over for some months or even longer. Then there is strong objection to subsection (4) of the Amendment. The noble Lord proposes that the Judicial Commissioner shall direct that any particular estate shall be taken out of its turn. Under the Act of 1903 all the administrative duties of the Land Commissioners under that Act have to be performed by the Estates Commissioners. The Judicial Commissioner has been sedulously kept clear of everything of that kind, and therefore his judicial position, the value of which I know is fully admitted by noble Lords opposite, has been maintained, but if you drag him into questions of priority and administration of this kind we fear you may seriously compromise his position in that respect. When we come to subsections (5), (6), and (7) I think your Lordships will see that their effect is altogether to do away with the provisions which we propose with regard to the issue of stock. The noble Lord stated that there was a real danger that those who desired to be paid in cash
744
would be crowded out—"flooded out" I think was his expression, by the rush of those anxious to take stock. On the Last Amendment we were told that nobody was going to take stock, and I hope we may hear what the settled opinion of noble Lords opposite is. We hope and believe that there will be a settled demand in the different classes, the half and half class, and the whole stock class. Certainly we do not share the fears of noble Lords that so many applications will come forward to be paid in stock that it will be found impossible to deal with the cases of those who desire to be paid in cash. The effect of this subsection is that it would take away any advantage which might be assumed to accrue to the vendor who is willing to take part or the whole in stock. He gains nothing. He apparently comes up exactly at the same time at which he would have come up if he was to be paid in cash, and that being so, it would be useless, I think, to continue the provision for paying anybody in stock under the Act. We all admit that from the financial point of view, although he gains in time, the man who takes in stock has to lose something. If he is not to gain in time, he will have to be paid in cash, and we shall have to go on with the melancholy process of paying five millions a year in cash, and not issuing any stock at all. I think that on reconsideration, and after looking again at subsection (5), the noble Lord will see that the man who comes forward for stock has no advantage whatever over the man who we may describe as the cash man pure and simple. In fact, I am not sure that under subsection (6) of the Amendment he would not be under a disadvantage, because as long as there are any vendors unsatisfied they are to be paid in cash, but the unhappy man who wants stock is not to be dealt with, and he would be in a worse position than if he had stood out for cash instead of stock. Lord MacDonnell dealt with the complicated questions raised in subsection (8) of the noble Lord's Amendment. Subsection (8) contemplates a payment at two different times. That is to say, the stock portion of the payment is to be paid at once, and the cash portion is to be paid at some future time, possibly a number of years later. We have never contemplated that. We have always contemplated that the two payments would be made at the same time and the whole transaction closed, and the man who takes

745
half stock would get his transaction finished a little earlier than if he had stood out for cash.
LORD LANGFORD: If he took stock, he would be paid off in cash at the same time?
THE EARL OF CREWE: Oh yes, the transaction is to be a single one. He receives both at the same moment.
LORD LANGFORD: The noble Earl said something about the delay in stock and then he rather dropped his voice. He said the cash payment would not be delayed, and we are very glad to hear that on this side of the House. But I did not hear what he said about stock payments being delayed.
THE EARL OF CREWE: All I said was that he would be the gainer; he would be paid rather sooner; he would be paid with less delay than if he had stood out for cash and for cash only. Perhaps I may assume that these transactions in two stages which the noble Lord proposes in subsection (8) will not be pressed by him. Lord MacDonnell pointed out very truly—and I could give some figures on the subject if the Committee desired—that by such a plan it would be quite possible and conceivable that a landlord might receive during this interval considerably more than he had been receiving from the tenants in the form of rent. I will not trouble the Committee with the figures unless they are desired. Lord MacDonnell said he would bring the matter up again on Report, and I should not like to give a definite opinion upon it before I have seen it in print. It was not our suggestion to include this in the Bill at all, for the simple reason that similar provisions had been placed in the form of regulations, and our intention was to issue them in the form of regulations, which no doubt could be placed at the disposal of Parliament before any long time has elapsed. Noble Lords will remember that the regulations which were issued in February, 1906, just after we came into office contained this provision with regard to priority, "The Estates Commissioners shall so regulate their business for advances in respect to holdings that holdings proposed to be sold under Sections 1 to 5 of the Act shall be as far as possible
746
in the priority in which the agreements were deposited in the office and the other duties imposed on vendors and tenant purchasers by law have been discharged." Those, I think, are practically the same words as the noble Lord has got in his Amendment. Under Heading B. there was established the order of priority, giving power to the Estates Commissioners to accelerate the advance of purchase money. We know the history of those regulations, and it has been our intention—to which we should be disposed to adhere unless there is some strong reason shown to the contrary—to proceed again by regulation in this case, instead of placing the provisions in the Bill. There would, I think, be greater convenience in proceeding by regulations in a case of this kind than by absolutely stereotyping the sums—no, not the sums, I suppose Lord MacDonnell does not propose to mention any sum of money?
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: No, I propose to leave that to the Treasury.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, because, of course, it would be clearly impossible for the Treasury to be bound by an Act of Parliament to make an issue of cash in a particular year. But, as I say, subject to anything that may be said in the course of the debate we propose to issue these in the form of regulations.
LORD ASHBOURNE*LORD ASHBOURNE said this question had attracted a great deal of attention, and it was of very high importance. He did not for a moment suggest that the Government were not anxious to arrive at a perfectly fair solution of the matter, but it was obvious that this question of preserving a fair statement of priorities was one of high importance, not only as a, matter of sentiment but as a matter of substance. There was a belief that in some way or other priority had not worked out in such a way as to give those who had applied first their payments reasonably early, and that many people had had to give way to those who came in much later, particularly if those who came in later had purchased through the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners. His noble friend Lord Langford had done a valuable service to the cause of land purchase administration in Ireland in raising this discussion. Whether every syllable or subsection in this Amendment

747
was the most proper way of meeting the difficulty might be another question. He would like before saying that it could all be accepted to read side by side with it the clauses suggested by Lord MacDonnell, who obviously spoke with knowledge, and also to be able to collate with it what the noble Earl had just said. Then it might be that when they came to report they would be in a condition to arrive at a section which would be reasonable, free from objection, and workable. When the late Government were in office, and Mr. Walter Long was in Ireland, during the Viceroyalty of Lord Dudley, there were regulations made. Some of them might be in operation still, and some had been replaced by others. But the noble Earl said he was not sure that this question could not be worked better by regulations than by the hard words of a Statute. There was something in that argument, if they knew what the regulations were to be and how and to what extent they were to be applied. He always felt the force of an argument that there was reason to leave some room for elasticity and to make necessary changes in administering large codes. He would not go into the details of the Amendment. The question bristled with complications and technicalities. There were three or four sets of owners, all with claims, and the thing was to adjust those claims in such a way that they would harmonise in administration with each other, recognising each claim put forward, and not allowing the first and earlier claims, which might be strong and urgent and unanswerable, to be postponed without very clear reason. A case had been established for providing a solution which would satisfy or seek to satisfy the heart-burning that existed on this question, and they should try to do something which would be regarded as a fair and reasonable effort to settle this question.
VISCOUNT MILNER*VISCOUNT MILNER said their Lordships would be all agreed by this time that it was not possible to arrive at any final decision on the very important points under discussion until they had had the benefit of seeing Lord MacDonnell's Amendment. But there was one point which he would like to ask the noble Earl, because it appeared to him likely that the difficulty which he felt himself might be felt; by other noble Lords who were trying to understand the position in this somewhat complicated matter. It was
748
with the view of eliciting information which might assist them in future debates that he asked this question. If he had misapprehended the noble Earl he hoped he would forgive him. He understood the noble Earl on the Second Reading and again this evening to say that it was the intention of the Government as far as possible to distribute five millions every year, and of this amount one million was to be available for sales to the Estates Commissioners and the remaining four millions were to be divided equally between those who insisted on having all their payment in cash and those who were willing to take half cash and half stock. It seemed a reasonable distribution, and he thought they must agree with the noble Earl that unless there were some arrangement of this kind the scheme would fail altogether. But was it intended that this distribution of the available funds should be laid down in any sort of definite and binding manner, or was it to rest absolutely with the Government of the day to vary it as much as they pleased? The noble Earl said that the intention of the Government was to make the distribution he had referred to, and no doubt when he said that on behalf of the present Government they could rely upon it that that was the course which they now meant to pursue. But for how long? Was this a matter which it was intended to leave entirely to the discretion of the Government of the day? Was it the wish of their Lordships that it should be so left? The noble Earl had pointed out that this question of priority in the past had been left to be decided by regulations. That, no doubt, was a most convenient method, but he pointed out that far more important issues were now going to depend upon the question of priority than had depended upon such regulations in the past. He thought it was fair that there should be a reasonable division of the available cash between those who wanted all in cash and those who were prepared to take part in stock. But, supposing, unfortunately, the stock was to have a very considerable fall. The effect of that undoubtedly would be that there would be less disposition to take stock. It seemed to him that in that case there would be a temptation to the Government of the day to put the screw on people to accept stock, in spite of the fall, by assigning a smaller, possibly a much smaller, proportion of the available money to those who still

749
desired to be paid entirely in cash. Would that be entirely a fair thing to do? Was it a thing which they ought to leave entirely to the discretion of the Executive of the day? He did not pretend to decide the question, but it was a matter of greater importance than had been decided by the regulations in the past. He would like, therefore, to receive from the noble Earl some further information on this point.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I will endeavour to answer the question which the noble Viscount has clearly set before us. I confess it does seem to me to be exceedingly difficult to put down in black and white exactly what the Estates Commissioners are to do in respect to the sums of money at their disposal. I fear that would be an impossible thing to do.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I quite understand that. It was a question of proportion that I was asking the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CREWE: On the question of proportion, you can hardly venture to bind yourselves until you know what is going to happen. For instance, we have heard the most deplorable foreboding from some noble Lords that nobody will take half stock and half cash. If they contend that so much cash ought to be available in a given year, I suppose for solely cash payments, it seems very difficult to ear-mark a particular sum for a particular purpose. I do not think the possibility suggested by the noble Viscount is a likely one because, after all, everybody's object must be to accelerate these transactions as far as possible, and there is no means of forcing everybody to take half stock and half cash because at the back of everything remains the fact that if a man asks for cash at a given moment he is entitled to have it; and, therefore, there must always be people on the list who are entitled to be paid in cash. To say that no payments shall be made except half in cash and half in stock would be a compulsion upon vendors to take stock, and it does not seem to me possible to do that under the Act as it stands. I will consider that point, and will further consider the point as to how far it is possible, or how soon it would be possible, to place the regulations before your Lordships. We will not lose sight of the point mentioned by the noble Viscount, though I am not very confident it would be possible to find any form
750
of words which could be included in a Statute.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH said the question raised by the noble Viscount might be solved in the following manner, and he only suggested it now so that it might be considered by the Government. Supposing it were suggested that £5,000,000 was available and £1,000,000 was placed at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners; the other £4,000,000 could be apportioned, provided at least half of the amount was applied in cash payments and the other half was applied to those who took half in cash and half in stock, with the proviso that if the people with half stock and half cash did not exhaust the remaining £2,000,000 the balance should go to augment the sum of those who took all cash.
THE EARL OF MAYO THE EARL OF MAYO said he understood the noble Earl had stated that he could not accept the Amendment, and that the procedure was to be entirely by regulations.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I thought it was agreed that the whole matter was going to stand over for Report until we saw what Lord MacDonnell proposed.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO said that if the matter was to stand over he had not heard the noble Lord who moved the Amendment say so. The noble Earl the Leader of the House said he preferred to proceed by regulations instead of putting it in the Bill. That gave a latitude to the Estates Commissioners, which in this Bill resolved itself into one man, and he could quite understand it might be the wish of the present Government to proceed by regulations. What he and his noble friends were asking for was a register, and not regulations which might be varied by any Government which happened to be in power. If the matter was to come up on Report, of course that was another question altogether; but they rather took exception to regulations dealing with an entirely new state of affairs under this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I venture to suggest that the most convenient course was that suggested by the noble Earl the Leader of the House a moment ago—namely, that we should allow the further consideration of this matter to

751
stand over until the Report stage. Meanwhile my noble friend behind me is to be congratulated on having raised a very interesting and important discussion. It is undoubtedly the case that there has been a great deal of uneasiness in regard to this question of priority. I do not say whether suspicions were well or ill-founded, but there was a suspicion that priority was not always observed exactly as it might have been. I have no doubt that in many cases there was a quite sufficient explanation of the reason for which an estate was taken out of its turn, but what my noble friend desires in future is that the matter should be put upon a perfectly clear and intelligible basis. The intricacy of the problem has been a little increased by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, who made what seemed to be a very instructive contribution to the debate, but one which we can scarcely appreciate until we have had an opportunity of considering his words. I hope we shall have an opportunity of considering not only the scheme of my noble friend behind me, and also the scheme of the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, but that we shall also be furnished with a distinct statement as to the manner in which the Government desire to deal with this question, because as to that there is apparently much uncertainty.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to insert the following new clause—
"4. Where a vendor, under either pending or future purchase agreements, receives payment in stock instead of in cash, all charges, duties, incumbrances, and redemption prices of quitrents, tithe rentcharge or other superior interests payable out of the purchase money to the Crown, the Land Commission, the Commissioners of Public Works, or any public department, shall be received and paid in stock upon the like terms as payment in stock was received by the vendor, and it shall be lawful for the Land Judge, and the Judges of the Chancery Division, and for any trustees, in respect of any sums payable out of the purchase money into court or to such trustees, to accept payment in stock on the like terms as payment was received by the vendor."
The noble Earl said that this clause raised a very important point. Its object was to enable the vendor who accepted stock to redeem his superior interests in stock. Their Lordships were probably aware that in the case of almost every estate in Ireland—he knew of none in
752
which it was not the case—the owner was able to sell under the Purchase Acts subject to superior interests, and he fancied estates were held in Ireland subject to superior interests to a very much greater extent than they were so held in England, Scotland and Wales. The superior interests, roughly, corresponded to what were known in London as ground rents, although of course in Ireland these superior interests were found in agricultural property, and not merely in town property. These superior interests existed to a very large extent indeed. He had made some inquiries from one or two friends who were large land agents, and he was told it was by no means out of the common to find estates where the payment of superior interests exceeded as much as 25 per cent. of the rents which were collected. That was absolutely ignoring any mortgages and absolutely ignoring any family charges. They desired that when a vendor accepted stock he should have the power of redeeming these superior interests, all of which, of course, had to be redeemed when a sale took place, in stock at the price at which he received it. There was a direct precedent in the Purchase Acts themselves for such a provision as he asked their Lordships to insert. Section 17 of the Act of 1891 said that—
"In the course of any sale proceedings, if it shall appear to the Land Commission that any tithe rent charge or head rent payable to them is redeemable out of the purchase money, and may be redeemed without injury to, and without waiting to ascertain the priority of any other charge, the Land Commission may, on the application of the landlord, order the redemption of the said tithe rent charge or head rent, by transferring to the Land Commission on account of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, guaranteed Land Stock to the nominal amount payable in respect of such redemption."
That was a redemption in stock. In that case the redemption in stock was made at the price at which the vendor received the stock, and he was asking their Lordships' to follow that precedent absolutely. Section 15 of the same Act bore on the second part of his Amendment. It allowed trustees to accept this stock in satisfaction of their claims. Their Lordships would not forget the position. Vendors were to be offered by the Government stock at 92, no matter what its value was below 92. Was it unfair to say that the Government should take stock back at the same price in redemption of claims against them.
There was one other point he would like to urge upon their Lordships. It referred only to future bargains, but it was a very important one when viewed in this light. Landlords making bargains hitherto had known, of course, that it was necessary for them to redeem their superior interests, and they had been able to calculate exactly how much purchase money they were going to get as the result of sale, because they knew they were going to get cash. They were therefore able to calculate exactly how much they would be able to spend in redeeming through superior interests, because everybody knew the prices at which superior interests under the Act of 1903 had to be redeemed; therefore, they knew how much would remain for them for subsequent investment after the sale. Now in future that certainty would very largely disappear, because a landlord would not know for certain—could not possibly guess, in fact—at what price the stock he was going to receive 6 or 7 years hence would stand. Therefore, if this Amendment were not adopted it would be quite impossible for him to calculate how much stock it would be necessary for him to realise in cash in order to redeem his superior interests if he had to redeem them in cash, and consequently he would be in absolute ignorance as to what would remain to him after he had redeemed those superior interests. The effect was bound to be that every landlord would be tempted to ask for a slightly higher price as an insurance against the stock being lower in price when he looked forward to getting his money five or six years hence, and the effect of forcing the landlord to make that insurance, and to ask a slightly higher price was bound to check land purchase. That, he thought, was not the desire of anybody who was interested in this Bill. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause:
'4. Where a vendor, under either pending or future purchase agreements, receives payment in stock instead of in cash, all charges, duties, incumbrances, and redemption prices of quit rents, tithe rentcharge, or other superior interests payable out of the purchase money to the Crown, the Land Commission, the Commissioners of Public Works, or any public department, shall be received and paid in stock upon the like terms as payment in stock was received by the vendor, and it shall be lawful for the Land Judge, and the Judges of the Chancery Division, and for any trustees, in respect
754
of any sums payable out of the purchase money into court or to such trustees, to accept payment in stock on the like terms as payment was received by the vendor.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON desired to say a few words in support of his noble friend's proposed new clause, and to point out a matter that had not yet been considered. It was obviously desirable if this block was to be relieved that a great many vendors must take stock. According to the present Stock Exchange figures the stock was at eighty-five and a fraction, and it was to be given to them at the nominal value of ninety-two. The vendor lost something between six and a-half and seven per cent. on that transaction, assuming that he could turn his stock into cash to-morrow. Now in Ireland, on the whole, landlords' interests were encumbered up to about half their value, and under the provisions of these Acts the landlord could not touch one penny of his purchase money, or anything that represented the purchase money, until all the encumbrances were discharged. The result of that would be that before any estate could be wound up the vendor would be forced to put upon the market half the purchase price. In other words, assuming that they gave £2,000,000 a year, which the landlord took in stock, the result was that them must be £1,000,000 in that year put upon the market if the estate was to be wound up. That was a forced glut, and would invariably run down the price of the stock far below eighty-five, so that he would lose in fact a great deal more than six per cent. upon his purchase money. That had always appeared to him to be a reason why, if it were at all possible, the vendors should not be asked to take the entire purchase money in stock, but so much of it in cash as would enable them to deal satisfactorily with most of their encumbrances. He feared very much that unless such relief were given as was indicated in the Amendment of his noble friend, unless the vendors were enabled to pay some of the money in stock instead of in cash—and there did not seem much unfairness in paying people back in their own coin, even though they were the State—it would inflict a grievous loss upon those who had made contracts with their tenants.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This is one of the Amendments which point out the advantage your Lordships enjoy over

755
another place, because I do not think there is any question that this Amendment would have been ruled out of order if anybody had moved it in the House of Commons.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Why?
THE EARL OF CREWE: Because it would increase the public charge. The fact, of course, is that quit rents and other charges of the kind where they are payable to the Crown are to be liquidated by stock at a discount. Now, my Lords, the noble Earl dwelt upon Section 17 of the Act of 1891, but his proposition goes considerably further than that provision. Under Section 17 of that Act it will be found that only tithe rent charges and perpetuity rents belonging to the Church Fund can be liquidated in this way. Charges payable to lay impropriators, for instance, do not come under that particular section. And, as a matter of fact, when sales took place under that Act and vendors were paid in stock, as they often were paid, in stock at par, stock was sold to redeem all those superior interests with the single exception of these Church rents and tithes mentioned in the section. Now, what the noble Earl proposes by his Amendment is that the Crown—that is to say the Woods and Forests Department, and, for all I know, the Inland Revenue Department—which had to accept this stock, because I do not quite know what is meant by the word "duties" in the Amendment. It might apparently cover the claim of the Inland Revenue for unpaid succession duty. Then, again, the noble Earl apparently intends that all payments due to the Local Loans Fund and under the various Improvement Acts should be paid in the same way. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, said that it was reasonable to pay people in their own coin, even although they were a Public Department; but surely there is this important difference. The argument might be a sound one if anybody was obliged to take stock.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Future agreements.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, but so far as all binding agreements are concerned at any rate, that argument does not apply.
LORD ATKINSON: Not legally obliged, of course; but financially obliged, unless he is prepared to wait for twenty years.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am not prepared to admit that. The option for cash is open to everybody, and it may suit certain individuals to wait, I do not think as long as twenty years—at least I trust not—but a certain number of years in order to be paid entirely in cash. I will grant this much to the noble Lord, that if there were such a case as that of a man who has to pay a quit rent of 25 per cent., and, in addition, has the remainder heavily mortgaged, he might be in a position where he would have to wait and receive cash; but I think it is also important to remember that so far as quit rents are concerned they are not in the strict sense the property of the landlord at all. Assuming the property bought, what was paid in respect of the purchase was the value less this permanent charge. I think, therefore, it is not reasonable to treat it as though it in any sense formed a part of the landlord's property. These departments who would have to pay are quite irrelevantly introduced into the matter. There is no reason in logic that I can see why they should be mulcted in this manner any more than all other superior interests which, I understand, the noble Earl does not intend to attack. I am afraid that for the reasons I have given we can hold out no hope of being able to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON confessed that the last speech of the noble Earl had been one of the most depressing he had ever heard, having regard to the prospects of this Bill. This was not a question of relieving landlords, but of making the Bill work in an effective fashion. He knew perfectly well that if the Government insisted upon it this Amendment must be regarded from the point of view of privilege, and must be ruled out, but, still, the Government had at issue their own Bill, and before the Report stage he hoped they would consider these few facts. What was the position? They had stock in such a position at present that anybody hesitated to issue fresh stock. By the provision in the Bill for allowing landlords to take stock they were going to offer the strongest inducement to the Treasury not to face the enormous loss which they must face with further issues under existing conditions. Therefore, they started without any pledge that they would issue cash, while they had always in their hands the power of issuing stock. Who would accept that? Not the

757
poorer landlords and not those whom it was most desirable to relieve, but anybody who could afford to take stock and was anxious to be quit of his property at the earliest possible moment. In the case of every other man who took stock the Government made it absolutely certain that he must throw it upon the market at the earliest possible moment, and every £200,000 of stock which was so thrown upon the market would make a further issue by the Government possible only on ruinous terms. It was, therefore, not in the interests of the landlord, but in the interests of the working of the Bill, which must otherwise come almost to a halt, that he urged the Government to reconsider what seemed to him to be a very unwise proposal from the point of view of the authors of the Bill, and a most inequitable one from the point of view of those who were affected by Government and other charges. It was quite clear to all who knew the circumstances of a large number of these landlords that the Government would have to go a long way before they would urge landlords who could afford to wait to sell at a loss. He knew it was impossible to carry the Amendment unless it came from the Government themselves, and he would therefore urge the noble Earl before the Report stage to consider whether, without any unfair loss to a Public Department, he could not find something which would enable the issue of stock to be made a little more palatable, to grease the wheels of the Bill, and prevent what he feared would cause without doubt practically a stoppage in the operations of the Land Commissioners in a year or two from the present time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): I should like to say one word with regard to this, because, although the form of the Amendment is to provide that Government Departments holding superior interests shall be paid in stock, the substance of the Amendment—I am not putting now the point of privilege—is to reduce the figure of 92, at which the stock is to be taken, to a lower figure, thereby to the prejudice of the Treasury. The proposition is that when a landlord agrees to accept part of the purchase money in stock he shall be able to impose without option upon Government Departments the duty of taking stock on the same terms—it may be at a depreciation. It is one thing to say that a man may agree to
758
take stock as part of the purchase money, allowing him the option of refusing, but quite a different thing to say that another person, without being allowed the option, shall be obliged to take the stock. The only effect would be that the Government would be a greater loser than under the scheme of the Bill, because they would be obliged to have all their superior interests redeemed in a depreciated security. The real point of the Amendment before the Committee is that it does seek to vary the terms upon which the Treasury think they can afford to carry out the scheme.
VISCOUNT MILNER*VISCOUNT MILNER ventured to doubt whether the financial effect would be quite what the noble and learned Lord foresaw. The Government had a great interest in maintaining the price of the stock, and one of the main objects of the Amendment was to prevent a great quantity of the stock being thrown on the market. The landlord must put his stock on the market, but the Government could afford to wait. Even if the Government were compelled to take a certain amount of stock against their will rather than that the landlords should be compelled to sell, it might well be to the ultimate advantage of the Government, as tending to prevent the continuous fall of a stock, which the Government were obliged to keep on issuing. Everyone acquainted with the financial side of the matter knew that at that moment even a comparatively small amount of stock being forced on the market would have a very serious effect on the price, and it might be that the Government would be the gainer in the long run if they were obliged to hold a certain amount of the stock.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It may be that it would be to the interest of the Government to accept stock, I do not know. But this Amendment proposes to make them do so.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN confessed to feeling very great difficulty with regard to the Amendment, because he entirely agreed with what had been said by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and by his noble friend behind him that if it was an Amendment proposed in the House of Commons it could only be proposed by a Minister of the Crown and could only be proposed in Com-

759
mittee of the House. It was not for him to pronounce on their Lordships' powers, but he could not imagine that this Amendment could properly be inserted in a Bill in their Lordships' House. He was much in agreement with the argument addressed to their Lordships by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He did feel that it was one thing for a landlord to accept payment voluntarily in stock but another thing for that form of payment to be forced on the Government or any other person concerned. It might be advisable, for the reasons stated by the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches, that the Government should allow landlords to make those payments in stock instead of cash, but he did not imagine without some legal provision to that effect that it would be possible for them to do so. He would venture to ask whether it might not be possible to insert a provision in the Bill in another place giving power to the Government, if they chose, to accept payment in stock, so as to prevent the difficulty which had been stated to their Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Atkinson, as affecting the landlords, and also to assist in what, of course, the Government would desire to do—to keep up the price of the stock.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN pointed out that the Amendment dealt not only with pending agreements but with future agreements, and all the arguments of the noble Earl and of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had been directed to the Bill as if it affected pending agreements only. A very obvious difference had been shown between giving the landlord the option of taking the stock and compelling Government Departments to take stock in payment of superior interests. As he had pointed out, the Amendment also dealt with future agreements, and they had not heard a word from the Lord Chancellor as to that part of it.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said that after what they had heard as to the financial aspect of the case he did not wish to press his Amendment at that stage. But he did strongly associate himself with what the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, had said, and he asked His Majesty's Government whether they would not take very seriously into consideration the suggestion he had made. He felt that something must be done in the interests of
760
the smooth working of the Bill. If nothing was done they would be in this position, that the Government were going to offer landlords stock at a price at which they were going to refuse to take it themselves. That being so, could they expect that anybody would take stock?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF KENMARE THE EARL OF KENMARE, in moving the insertion of the new clause standing in his name, asked leave to withdraw the first four lines of his Amendment. The first four lines ran—
"In any case where an originating application has been lodged it shall be the duty of the Commissioners to declare, within a reasonable tints, whether the estate may be regarded as a separate estate for the purposes of the Act."
Amendment moved—
"To insert the following new clause:
'In the case of an estate so declared the following provisions shall apply—

(1) In the case of any holding on the estate where the provisions contained in section one, subsection (1) are complied with, the Lands Commissioners shall forthwith sanction the advance and vest the, holding in the purchaser, and such part of the estate shall for all purposes of the Act be treated as if it had been declared a separate estate:

(2) The remainder of the estate shall be treated as a separate estate and carry priority according to the date on the register of priorities.'"—(The Earl of Kenmare.)

THE EARL OF CREWE: I understand the noble Earl does not press the former part of his Amendment which would have placed compulsion on the Estates Commissioners, or at least possible compulsion on them, to act without having any regard to the amount of cash which maybe placed at their disposal by the Treasury. But the noble Earl proposes, in the case of any estate to which the zone provision applies, that the estate may be divided up into sections, some holdings on which should be dealt with at once while other holdings would stand over, possibly for a considerable time. I speak with deference, and I should like to hear some further opinion on this subject from noble Lords from Ireland, but I should certainly have supposed that the idea of selling some holdings here and some there on a property, leaving the others in their present condition, would, even from the landlord's point of view, have been inconvenient if not in some cases impracticable. But from the point of view of

761
the Estates Commissioners I would say, without hesitation, that the proposal is not a practicable one. The present practice always has been to deal with the estate as a whole and to vest the holdings in the purchasers all at the same time, and the purchase money is then, of course, distributed pro rata. Take, for instance, the further case of the allocation of those charges which we were speaking about in reference to the quit rents. The burden thrown on the Estates Commissioners to allocate in respect of a particular holding in a case of that kind would be an extremely heavy one, and unless some noble Lord is able to combat what I have just said, we must maintain the opinion that the result of accepting this Amendment would throw the proceedings of the Estates Commissioners into such general confusion that we cannot venture to look at it. I think I see what the idea of the noble Earl was in moving it, but as a matter of machinery I think the new clause is an altogether impossible and impracticable one.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON thought there was a grievance, but he agreed it was not very easy to see a way of remedying it. It might possibly be that there were some tenants on an estate to whom the landlord had agreed to sell for a certain sum and as to whose holdings everything was completed and ready, and there might be other tenants in whose cases, on account of boundary questions and things of that kind, there might be delay, and it did seem unreasonable to hold up the entire thing until the last man had been settled with. They might have a case of 100 holdings on an estate where the landlord and tenants in ninety-nine cases had agreed and nothing remained but to vest the property in the tenants, and it seemed rather hard that the balance of the purchase money should not be paid over to the landlord but should be held up for four or five or six months until some particular holding about which there was some difficulty had been ultimately settled.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD was of opinion that the proposal of the noble Earl would restore the state of things which existed before the Act of 1903. The principle of the Act of 1903 was the sale of whole estates, whereas before that Act the practice was the sale of individual holdings. He asked whether it was really proposed to abandon the in globo sales under the Act of
762
1903 and revert to the old and condemned and obsolete custom which prevailed before that Act was introduced.
THE EARL OF KENMARE THE EARL OF KENMARE said that was not his intention. In eighty per cent. of the cases the thing went through practically automatically, and he thought it might be possible that the portion of the estate with regard to which there was no difficulty might be dealt with speedily while the remaining portion could wait until everything was cleared up.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON did not think there was any suggestion in the Amendment to the effect that the old practice should be reverted to. The landlord sold his estate to each individual tenant, and the Estates Commissioners came in and said that the block which he had sold to all those tenants was an estate. That definition was purely for the purpose of paying the bonus. There was no desire to abandon that position. What was desired was that when everything was ready with regard to nineteen-twentieths of the estate the transactions between landlord and tenants should not be hung up until the last tenant had been settled with. It was not a reversion to any previous practice at all, but simply a provision to facilitate and accelerate payment in cases where there was no difficulty.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There is one question that I should like to ask, and I think it is a pertinent one. Is it not the case that the Estates Commissioners already have power to do something of the kind which my noble friend proposes, and that they do do it? As far as I have become aware of the practice of the Commissioners, in a case such as that spoken of by my noble and learned friend where nineteen-twentieths of the tenancies on an estate were all in order and the transaction with regard to those nineteen-twentieths was one which could properly be allowed to go through, I am under the impression that the Commissioners do sanction the advance and treat those nineteen-twentieths as a separate estate, reserving the one-twentieth, where there is a hitch owing to some complication, for future treatment. If that can be done under the present law, and if that continues to be the policy of the Land Commissioners, the necessity for compelling them by Statute to do what my noble friend desires seems to me to be considerably diminished. I should like to be

763
set right if as a matter of fact I am wrong in thinking that what my noble friend desires can already be done.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD thought there was some misapprehension on the point. There was a provision in the Act of 1903 by which the Estates Commissioners could, in certain circumstances, take the consent of three-fourths of the tenants of an estate as binding the other tenants, but in no case did the Estates Commissioners deal with an individual holding without previously declaring that holding to be an estate. It was necessary, before the money could be advanced, for the holding to be declared an estate and in that way brought within the words of the Act of 1903. That Act provided in the case of a sale of an estate that when application was made for an advance under the Land Purchase Acts of the whole of the purchase money of the holding and the Land Commission were satisfied of certain things they should then sanction the advance, but before doing that it was necessary that they should declare the holding to be an estate. No advances and no payments could be made for individual holdings as holdings, and if each holding was declared an estate it would mean a reversion to the old state of things and a destruction of what was introduced by the Act of 1903.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not able to say whether or not in the case of nineteen out of twenty tenants agreeing and being ready to complete the Commissioners may dispense with the conformity, so to speak, of the twentieth. Indeed I may say that this particular branch of practice is not within my ken, because the House of Lords is always forbidden from dealing with the Irish land system or the Land Act. But the proviso proposed by the noble Earl is none the less, to my mind, open to the gravest objection whichever view be taken of the existing practice, because here is a requirement that as soon as the provisions have been complied with "the Lands Commissioners shall forthwith sanction the advance and vest the holding in the purchaser,"—that might apply to ten or twenty out of 100 holdings—"and such part of the estate shall for all purposes of the Act be treated as if it had been declared a separate estate." In other words, you split up an estate previously composed of 100 holdings into ten or twenty or thirty separate estates, or, if necessary as many
764
separate estates as there are holdings upon it. That is what the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, referred to when he said it would be going back to the old practice. If I may conclude with an illustration, supposing there are 100 tenants and twenty of them have already got through in the month of October you would then have to proceed at once to hand over in respect of those twenty the aliquot portion, that is twenty-hundredths, of the money paid, and next month there might be five or ten more ready. All that would increase the business difficulties; and if it so happened that the estate was mortgaged for half its value, as I suppose estates in Ireland often are, the difficulties would be increased and you would have to pay off the encumbrances by driblets.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON pointed out that that was provided for at present by the very useful provision that they might pay off the prior encumbrances although they might not have enough money to pay off the subsequent ones.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At any rate considerable difficulties might arise. All the money might be arrested in the first instance for the payment of encumbrances. However, I think that there are practical difficulties, and I have already indicated them to your Lordships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
5.—(1) The percentage payable under section forty-eight of the Act of 1903 shall be calculated at the rates specified in the First Schedule to this Act, and for the purposes of that section the percentage at the rates so specified shall be deemed to be the percentage under this section:
Provided that the percentage payable on the purchase money of an estate, which consists of or includes lands in respect of which there are purchase agreements entered into or deemed in pursuance of this section to have been entered into on or before the twenty-fourth day of November nineteen hundred and eight shall (so far as the percentage is payable in respect of the purchase of those lands) be calculated at the rate of twelve per cent. instead of being calculated under this section.
(2) An agreement for the purchase of any estate or land, though not entered into on or before the twenty-fourth day of November nineteen hundred and eight, shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to be a purchase agreement entered into on or before that date, where on or before that date—

765

(a) the vendor has lodged an originating request in manner provided by rules made under the Act of 1903 with a view to the purchase of the estate or land by the Land Commission under section six of that Act or by the Congested Districts Board under section seventy-nine of that Act; or

(b) the vendor has accepted a preliminary estimate of price made by the Land Commission with a view to the purchase of the estate or land under sections six or eight of the Act of 1903, or entered into a preliminary agreement with the Congested Districts Board with a view to the purchase of the estate or land under section seventy-nine of that Act; or

(c) the Land Judge in the course of proceedings in which the estate or land is eventually sold to the Land Commission under section seven, or to the Congested Districts Board under section seventy-seven of the Act of 1903, has caused the Commission or Board to be furnished with particulars and documents respecting the estate or land in pursuance of either of these sections; or

(d) the Estates Commissioners have made an offer for the purchase of the estate or land under subsection (4) of section two of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907.

(3) So much of section forty-seven of the Act of 1903 as limits the total of the sums payable to the Land Purchase Aid Fund to twelve million pounds shall cease to have effect.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO said he did not think Clause 5 should be passed without some remark with regard to the bonus, which was now arranged in quite a different manner from what it was under the Act of 1903. When introducing the Bill in 1908 Mr. Birrell said that the bonus was intended to supply a cash medium to bridge over the possible inability of a landlord to accept the fair value of his estate. That was not quite a fair statement with regard to the description and object of the bonus. In the great majority of cases, when the costs, expenses, and losses incidental to a sale had been provided for, the balance of the purchase money and bonus, when prudently invested, produced very often an income considerably below the net income which the owner had previously derived from his estate. They were often told that with the bonus and the price the tenants gave, the landlord got out with a very great deal more than he was entitled to. He thought he ought to say something with regard to the Parliamentary history of the bonus. In the original Bill as introduced by Mr. Wyndham, it was for the purpose of aiding the sales of estates under the Act and making contributions towards the expenses incidental to the redemption of superior and intervening interests, the investigation of title, the distribution of purchase money, and for other matters. As the Bill was introduced, the bonus was referred to in those terms. Then there was a graduated scale put forward. On
766
that graduated scale being introduced Mr. Redmond commented on the scheme and said the effect of it would be to keep large estates out of the market because in such cases, as far as the bonus was concerned, there would absolutely cease to be any inducement to sell at all, and he went on to say that public opinion in Ireland had taken a very decided course in the matter; and he alluded to the National Convention, the Landlords Convention, and the Land Conference, and urged the desirability of making the bonus fifteen per cent. It was agreed that the bonus should be twelve per cent. That was passed without comment when the Bill of 1903 got to the Report stage. The bonus was now relegated to a sliding scale. Mr. Wyndham having adopted the twelve per cent. bonus, the money was allocated for that purpose and all parties agreed to the twelve per cent. The chief advantages in the bonus were, first, in so far as it was invested in capital it recouped the vendor for the costs and expenses of sale, which usually amounted to one year's purchase of the rental and in smaller properties a larger amount. Secondly, it assisted the vendor to wipe out arrears of rent if any existed. That fact was entirely in favour of the tenant. Thirdly, where the estate was encumbered it enabled him to recoup himself or to borrow money to pay for the loss of income which he must face for several years owing to having to continue to pay the full rate of interest on his encumbrances while receiving a lower income from his tenants. He ought to pay his encumbrances off at four or five per cent., and he was receiving three and a-half per cent. and in very few cases four per cent. from his tenants. The sliding scale had been much debated before. It was held that the bonus of twelve per cent. was improperly paid, so to speak, in the case of the Duke of Leinster's estate. That was a large estate, and it was always held that the Duke of Leinster had received a bonus of £80,000 by selling it. It was not the Duke of Leinster who was selling the estate, it was the trustees. That estate was in his county, and he assured their Lordships that that was not a fair argument at all, although it was always thrown in their teeth, because any noble Lord who was a trustee would naturally deal with the estate in that way. He did not think it was fair that that should be quoted in the way it had been. The sliding scale which had been adopted meant, of course, that the bonus was very

767
much smaller, and he did not think that Clause 5 should be passed without some protest being made from their side with regard to it. He knew perfectly well what it was put in for; it was inserted to save the Treasury. As he had said before, this was a Treasury Bill with compulsion tacked on to it. It was all very well to say that they took the bonus and got large prices. The bonus enabled them to meet the arrears of the tenants and to pay for the expenses incurred. They felt that the sliding scale which had been adopted in the present Bill was not calculated to further the carrying out of land purchase in Ireland.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said there was another objection to the sliding scale which was of more importance, and that was that the Act practically gave a large portion of the bonus to the tenant and not to the landlord. That worked out in an extraordinary way. Take, for instance, a tenancy of £100 a year rent; if the landlord sold at twenty-four years purchase the bonus was at four per cent. and he pocketed £2,496. If he sold at twenty-three years purchase he got six per cent. and he pocketed £2,438. The difference between the twenty-three years purchase and the twenty-four years purchase was only £58 to the landlord, but it was £100 to the tenant. The result of that in operation would be that the tenant would say to the landlord, "Take twenty-three years purchase from me; you will only lose £58 by it, whereas I will gain £100." Take another example. If the landlord sold at twenty-one years purchase he got ten per cent., and would pocket, where the rent was £100, £2,310. If he sold at twenty years purchase he got twelve per cent. and pocketed £2,240. He only lost £70 and the tenant gained £100. It was the same through all the scale; so that practically the landlord, owing to the scale of bonus, was put in the position that the tenant would press upon him in every case to take twenty-three years purchase instead of twenty-four, saying, "You will only lose £50 or £60, and I will gain £100." So far from the bonus being an inducement and a help to the landlord to sell, it would have a contrary effect owing to the sliding scale as they had fixed it. The tenant gained more by a lower number of years purchase than the landlord lost, and there would, therefore,, be a direct inducement to him to press the landlord to take a lower number of years purchase.
LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON said it appeared to him there was another objection to the way in which the bonus was to be paid in the Bill. Under the Act of 1903 the bonus went to the tenant for life. There seemed to be a great difference of opinion on that point at the time, and Lord Macnaghten moved an Amendment to bring it into the corpus of the property and to the interest of the reversioner. He got a considerable amount of support, and the argument seemed to be a very strong one in that case in 1903 that the vendor was being bribed to sell the reversion. If that was so under the 1903 Act, it was infinitely more so under this Bill, because under the sliding scale the less the number of years purchase the vendor sold for the greater the bonus he placed into his own pocket. Therefore, it was a direct inducement to him to reduce the amount of purchase money, and to get the larger bonus himself. He called attention to that because it seemed to him that some protest ought to be raised on the matter. He had not ventured to put down any Amendment, but he would like to hear what His Majesty's Government had to say on the point. He thought something should be done upon it when they got to the Report stage.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Your Lordships, I know, will not expect me to reply at any length. With regard to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, said, it is no doubt the fact that there are disadvantages and anomalies which are incidental to any and every sliding scale, but in our opinion they do not outweigh the advantage which comes from making the bonus higher as the number of years purchase is fewer. I confess I see no reason for doing what the noble Lord suggested as an alternative—making the amount of the bonus depend on the amount of the total sum involved; because it seems to me where a large estate is sold on good and easy terms by the landlord that that landlord should get as large a proportion of bonus as a smaller proprietor who exacts the uttermost farthing he can get. With regard to the point raised by my noble friend on the Cross Benches, the question to which he drew attention is one no doubt of some real substance. There is an objection to doing what he desired to do—namely, that in cases where the number of years purchase is small and the bonus is proportionately large it, or some

769
part of it, should not be at the disposal of the tenant for life but should go into the corpus of the estate. The objection to that proposition I always understood to be that it would discourage tenants for life and so reduce the probability of sales, which we desire to encourage. But I do not deny that there is considerable force in what my noble friend said.
Clauses 5 to 10 agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
Clause 11:
11.—(1) Where by reason of the death of the purchaser or the transmission of the purchaser's interest in a holding, or in pursuance of a declaration of the Land Commission under section fifteen of the Act of 1903 with respect to a sub-tenancy or a sub-divided holding, a fresh purchase agreement is entered into in substitution for an original purchase agreement previously made, any such fresh agreement shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be deemed to be substituted for the original agreement, and, whenever lodged with the Land Commission, to have been lodged with the Land Commission at the date on which the original agreement was so lodged.
(2) Where a vendor at the request of the Land Commission enters into an agreement with the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board for the sale to them of an estate consisting of or including lands, which he has proposed to sell to persons other than that Commission or Board and in respect of which purchase agreements have been lodged with the Land Commission on or before the twenty-fourth day of November nineteen hundred and eight, the percentage payable on the purchase money of the estate, or on that portion thereof which represents the purchase money of those lands (in the case of an estate comprising other lands) shall so far as the purchase money or the portion of the purchase money is not in excess of the aggregate of the purchase money fixed by the original agreements be calculated in the like manner and the purchase annuities payable on the re-sale of those lands shall be payable at the like rate as if the agreement for the sale of the estate had been entered into on or before the twenty-fourth day of November nineteen hundred and eight.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE moved to omit from subsection (1) the words "by reason of the death of the purchaser or the transmission of the purchaser's interest in a holding, or in pursuance of a declaration of the Land Commission under Section 15 of the Act of 1903 with respect to a sub-tenancy or a sub-divided holding." He said the clause was no doubt very useful so far as it went, as it allowed a fresh agreement entered into in certain cases to be dealt with by the Land Commissioners in the same way as the original agreement would be. It would, therefore, have the advantages
770
which attached to the original agreement. Three cases were mentioned in the section to which it was applicable—by reason of the death of the purchaser, or the transmission of the purchaser's interest in a holding, or in pursuance of a declaration of the Land Commission under Section 15 of the Act of 1903 with respect to a sub-tenancy or a sub-divided holding. Why should these benefits be limited to these three classes of cases mentioned in the clause? Might there not be other cases where it would be equally applicable? For instance, there might be agreements for the interchange, enlargement, or rearrangement of holdings, or the alteration of purchase price, or where land had been taken compulsorily after the original agreement had been lodged. There might be other cases also which he could not think of for the moment which might be equally entitled to the benefit of this clause. There would also be the danger, if these three classes of cases were to be provided for, that unreasonable pressure might be put upon the vendors by the Commissioners threatening to make new purchase agreements in those cases which were not provided for by the clause, unless the vendors agreed to sell to the Commissioners themselves. They knew that pressure of this kind had been brought to bear upon vendors by the exercise of the Treasury power of stopping sales by refusing to declare the lands in a state in respect of which agreements within the Purchase Acts had been lodged, thus compelling the vendors to sell to the Commissioners instead of direct to the tenants. It was to obviate a hardship of that kind that he desired by his Amendment to make the clause generally applicable to all substituted agreements, and not merely to three classes of agreement to which it was at present restricted.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 22, to leave out from 'Where' to 'holding,' in line 26."—(Lord Dunboyne.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this clause was carefully considered, and His Majesty's Government are not prepared to agree to the extension which the noble Lord proposes. He proposes that in any and every case in which an agreement is substituted without any regard at all to the particular circumstances, the old term should apply. That, of course, must bring in a very large

771
number of cases to which the old bonus rate and the former purchase annuity would apply. I notice that the next Amendment of the noble Lord, which is, of course, an alternative Amendment, is drawn in considerably narrower terms. I do not know whether the noble Lord would desire to say anything on that. We cannot accept his first Amendment, and, as regards his second Amendment, I would say at once that I will consider before the Report stage whether it would be possible to accept that or something like it. But I cannot, as the noble Lord will understand, make any promise on the subject.
LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE said that the noble Earl's promise that he would consider the matter and weigh the arguments addressed to him was quite reasonable and fair. The point made by his noble friend Lord Dunboyne was that it looked as if they were excluding some classes which were just as much entitled to attention as those in the clause. The noble Earl had not given the least indication of the kind of cases that would be open to objection. If there were a bona fide substituted agreement, why in the name of commonsense limit the clause to three cases? Why drag in three things, and say if the change was made in one of them it was to be regarded as correct and proper? Of what was the noble Earl afraid? He (Lord Ashbourne) was all against fraud and impropriety, but supposing the agreement were perfectly bona fide, open, and frank, published under the village cross and all the neighbours talking about it, which they would in any event, he could not see the objection of the Government on this point. The noble Earl said he would consider it. Well, there was a great deal to consider. He did not think there was any defence for keeping the drafting of the clause on the present narrow basis, but possibly his noble friend would be satisfied with the statement that the noble Earl would consider the point before Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would point out that under the Amendment you would substitute a new agreement on more onerous terms—a longer number of years purchase, and then insist on the old terms provided in the former Act.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE said he rather thought no fresh agreement could be substituted for an original one without the
772
sanction of the Land Commissioners, and that would safeguard any case such as that suggested by the Lord Chancellor. He had been rather puzzling his brains about what class of cases could be in the mind of the noble Earl the Leader of the House or of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, which they thought he was apparently dealing with. He had only mentioned a few cases that occurred to him. Other cases might arise, and it was a pity to restrict them, because they would be safeguarded to a very great extent by the fact, as he believed it to be, that all substituted agreements would have to be lodged with the consent of the Commissioners. He would like to get his original Amendment if the noble Earl would consider it.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I must point out that a further objection to the original Amendment—it might apply to some extent to the second, but it certainly applies to the first—is that it would definitely increase the charge.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD suggested that the difficulty would be overcome after the word "Where" in the Amendment the words "with the approval or sanction of the Estates Commissioners" were inserted.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE said he would withdraw his Amendment at present.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DUNBOYNE LORD DUNBOYNE said that his second Amendment was to insert, after the word "holding," the words "or in consequence of any direction of the Land Commissioners or of the Estates Commissioners." He understood the noble Earl would consider this Amendment as well, and he would, therefore, not move it.
Clauses 11, 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
14.—(1) Where after the passing of this Act application is made under subsection (1) of section one of the Act of 1903 for an advance of the whole purchase money of any holding, if the Land Commission are satisfied that circumstances exist which, in their opinion, necessitate inquiry as to the security for the advance or the equity of the price, they may by order declare that the provisions of the said subsection shall not apply, and may deal with the application accordingly in like manner as if those provisions had not been complied with.

773
(2) The Judicial Commissioner and the Estates Commissioners may make rules under section twenty-three of the Act of 1903 providing for the furnishing of such particulars with respect to rent and arrears and of such information with regard to the estate as may appear necessary for the purposes of this section and for the verification of the particulars and information in such manner as they think fit.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON moved an Amendment to subsection (1) to leave out all the words after "satisfied" and to insert "that a sum exceeding one year's rent of the holding has been added to the purchase money thereof, in respect of rent due thereout, may refuse to sanction the advance, unless the parties to the agreement of purchase and sale consent that the purchase money shall be reduced by the amount of such excess over one year's rent. On such consent being given the said agreement shall be varied accordingly, and the application dealt with under the aforesaid subsection in its proper order as if the reduced sum had been the whole of the purchase money, and the application had been originally made in respect of that sum. The refusal to make the advance on the ground aforesaid must be concurred in by the Judicial Commissioner."
He moved the Amendment with two objects. The first was to protect the zone system from the insidious and destructive attacks which had been made upon it by the provisions of this Bill. The second object was to provide a means of curing or removing the only blot which had been discovered in the operations of the zone system. He was afraid that his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and he would astonish each other, because his noble and learned friend had said he would be astonished if anybody contended that this Bill abolished the zones. That was exactly what he was going to contend, and he was astonished that any one should think it did not abolish the zones. However, as he knew the Lord Chancellor always maintained an open mind he did not despair even of convincing him that it did destroy the most valuable and distinctive features of the zone system. He (Lord Atkinson) ought to know something about the zones. He superintended the drafting of the clause which created them, and explained and defended them in the House of Commons. As the zones were, he thought, to many persons almost as unknown land as the Arctic Circle, where apparently two
774
travellers might arrive at the same destination without ever meeting, he thought it would be better that he should explain the zones from the beginning, their object, their operation, and their effect. In every sale under the Land Purchase Acts there were necessarily three parties interested. There was the vendor who sold, the purchaser who bought, and the State that lent the money. The great advantage of the zone system was that it established an automatic machinery which gave adequate security to the State and protection for the parties in remainder.
He thought the case was best illustrated by figures. He would take the case of a tenant who held in the year 1880 at £100 a year. On the first revision his rent was reduced to £80 or less. On the second revision it was reduced to £64. Under the zone system in the case of such a rent—second term rent as it was called, that was, one which had been revised twice—the reduction was not to be less than ten per cent. and must not be more than thirty per cent. In point of fact the average reduction of rent upon those sales was 27·9, as was found in the last Report of the Commissioners, and the average number of years purchase 29·5. For illustration he would take the sale at a price which was the mean between the two extremes. It represented twenty per cent. reduction— that was, instead of the rent being £64 a year, henceforth the purchasing annuity was to be £51 10s. That was what the tenant had to pay for having acquired the interest of the landlord. As the interest of the tenant in many parts of Ireland was as great as the interest of the landlord, and as the interest of both was pledged to the State, it was perhaps preposterous to say that in such a case the State was not secured by a payment of £51 10s. The reduction of twenty per cent. meant almost twenty four and a-half years purchase of the land. That was a fair price, and therefore the remainder was secured.
That was the position in figures, and he would now take the position in law. The State in law had an additional protection—namely, that the tenant must be a real tenant and the transaction must be a real and honest bargain. If the tenant were merely created for the purpose of a purchase, that was outside the whole business. If the transaction were not a genuine transaction there was no need to carry it through. So much for the State. What was the legal

775
protection to the tenant? It was that by the tenth section of the Act of 1885 the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was vested in the Estates Commissioners. It was a roundabout business, but the net result, coupled with the provision of the Act of 1887, was that if the tenant had been defrauded or coerced or the landlord had been defrauded or coerced into a bargain which he desired to escape from, he had only to ask relief—and he laid stress upon the word "ask" having regard to this provision—in order to get the same relief that would be administered in the Court of Chancery. The agreement which he had been induced to enter into by fraud or coercion could be rescinded and set aside. There were many unfounded statements, but there could be none more unfounded than that either the State was betrayed into financing an unreal transaction or that the tenant was coerced into entering into a bargain which he did not wish to make. From first to last—from 1869 until the present hour—the landlord and tenant were always treated as persons who were capable of entering into bargains and protecting their own interests, neither party being treated as idiots, lunatics, or infants. The distinction of having treated them as idiots, lunatics, and infants entirely belonged to the present Government, because, according to this provision, though the tenant might desire that the contract should be carried out, though he had not asked to be relieved, though the State was amply secured, the omniscient Commissioners might step in and declare that the purchase price was too high, this intervention being disguised under the term "approval of the equity of the price"—an expression, by the way, which had a peculiar history.
As far as the phrase was concerned, it introduced a new element which had never been a test before in these transactions. He should have thought that any person who had any knowledge of Irish agrarian legislation would have hesitated before tearing up contracts. He was one of those —he was afraid he did not share the opinions of some of his noble friends on that side of the House—who approved of the objects of the Act of 1881 so far as preventing the increase of rent for improvements, and so far as it prevented arbitrary eviction; but he said, with a knowledge of thousands of cases, that the worst machinery that ever was invented
776
by mortal man for these worthy objects was the machinery of the Act of 1881, because in the place of doing what was done in every other case and saying that an unjust contract should not be carried out and putting a penalty on a man who made an unjust contract, it endeavoured to tear up all contracts and allow a herd of sub-commissioners to treat the relations of landlord and tenant without principle, without guide, without consistency, knowledge, or training, arriving at most preposterous results. If he wanted a witness to that he should refer to the evidence of Mr. Commissioner Bailey, who, at page 106 of Vol. V. of the Evidence before the Estates Commissioners gave a description as to how these men acted by rule of thumb; and wound up with the aphorism, "Where men are not sure of themselves they are, always moderate." That was an axiom to guide judicial investigation. He had never heard it before but once, and that was in the case of an action with respect to a promissory note for£100. The offence was forgery. Some of the jury were inclined to think, but were not sure, that the document was forged. Others thought the document was genuine, but were not sure, so, adopting Mr. Commissioner Bailey's principle, not being sure of themselves, they were moderate and brought in a verdict for £50. He should have thought that before the Government enabled anybody to tear up contracts made with men who were prima facie capable of making them, they should, at all events; remember that the destruction of contracts between landlord and tenant had in Ireland brought about such an intolerable position that the State was asked to spend £180,000,000 to drag the parties out of it Therefore, he said that this power which was given to the Estates Commissioners of saying that a price which landlord and tenant agreed to was not to be carried out, though the State must be secured, was an absolute destruction of the main feature of the zone system. That feature was that so long as the State was secured and the persons in remainder protected an advance must be made.
The provision in this Bill was not that if they discovered the price was unfair or if they discovered the price was inequitable they might prevent the zones operating—not at all. If they thought there were circumstances which they ought to inquire into they could dispense with the zones

777
irrespective altogether of the result of the inquiry. It was a jump in legislation, So that on April 1 they could order an inquiry, and by April 30 it could be discovered that the thing was all straight and the State secured, and yet the zones had gone a month before. This provision altogether destroyed the zones, because the two main features of the zone system were that it automatically secured the interests of the State and the interests of the remainder men, and then made it obligatory upon the Commissioners to make an advance. That had gone. He thought it was a lamentable thing. No human being was more anxious than he was that the great social and agrarian revolution which was taking place in Ireland should be conducted to its legitimate fulfilment upon wise and honest lines, and the measure of his anxiety was the measure of his detestation and disgust that some of the provisions of this Bill had been introduced to thwart, to oppose, and to blast the hopes that had been raised for the termination of this miserable and desolating strife. Nothing in the Act of 1903 so conducted to the success of sale as the provision that once the parties came within the terms of the zones their contract must go through. All that they had to do was to contract on such terms that their contract came within the zones. This provision, however, left all to uncertainty.
He did not think any person who had the slightest practical acquaintance with the conduct of the conversion of peasant tenants into proprietors—the handing over, as Lord Dunraven said, of the whole real property of the country from one class to another—could contest for an instant that one of the main helps to that result was the zone system, Now it was assailed on four grounds. He would like to deal with them seriatim. Two of them were frivolous. One of them was most serious, and his noble and learned friend would not misunderstand him when he said that his speech was more likely than anything he had ever heard to shake the confidence in the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland. He would tell his noble and learned friend why. They did not hear much of erosion. That was the Chief Secretary's discovery. That anybody could stand up in his (the Chief Secretary's) important position and say that holdings bought under these Acts were rendered less valuable and of less security to the
778
State by the progress of erosion was trifling with a serious subject. If it were a joke it was a poor joke. If it were meant to be a serious assertion, there was no foundation for it. He challenged the noble Earl to point to a single instance where a case came up on second revision where there was ever a penny abatement asked for on the ground that the holding had been diminished by erosion. Another cause of deterioration was said to be a land-slip. He did not know whether the noble Earl would confine himself to a land-slip or take refuge in a bog-slide. A bog-slide was really a work of imagination. They knew that the noble Earl at one part of his life was a poet, and, in the words of Shakespeare—
"As imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name."
A bog-slide was an effort of poetic genius. Although prima facie it was not a thing to excite poetic fancy, yet it threw a glow about the meanest object. But there was no such thing. It had never occurred. He challenged the noble Earl to produce out of the 230,000 cases—it was nearly 300,000 he believed—in which rents had been fixed in Ireland, one single case where a reduction of rent was asked for on account of either a bog-slide, and, still more absurdly, a land-slip.
What was the next ground? It was that some rents were fixed not by the decision of the Court but by agreement between the parties. Well, that was the strangest objection of all. He thought Lord Ashbourne would bear him out in saying that if there was one thing more than another on which Mr. Gladstone insisted in the Act of 1881 it was that there would be no litigation at all. It was as correct as most of his prophecies about Ireland. There would be no litigation at all, it was said, the moment the h adlines were set by the cases that were brought into Court; there would be universal agreement. Mr. Gladstone encouraged it and belauded it, and pointed it out as the real and wise course to follow. And now twenty-five years afterwards the men who took the advice were told that the rents which they agreed to had not that sacredness which belonged to the rents fixed by the Estates Commissioners. That shook the foundation of every rent fixed by

779
agreement in Ireland, and a most lamentable and unfortunate objection it was. But what was still stranger was the Dunraven conference. At that conference were Mr. Redmond, Mr. Wm. O'Brien, Mr. Haddington, and that friend of consistency, Mr. T. W. Russell. The basis of that national treaty was that second-term rents were to be the basis on which landlords were to be bought out. He spoke in the recollection of the noble Earl. Why was not a distinction made then between rents fixed by agreement and rents fixed by decision of the court? If there were any real distinctions hitherto these Nationalist members whom he gave credit for having keenly at heart the interests of the tenancy of Ireland were false to their trust, because they made no distinction between rents that were fixed by agreement and rents fixed by judicial instrument. Why did they not? Because there was no real and solid distinction. If there had been they would have been the very first to have insisted that a difference should be made. They knew there was no difference and they were right.
What were the figures? On first-term rents there were fixed by litigation 202,411 cases and the average reduction was 20·3 per cent., while 140,846 cases were settled by agreement, and the reduction was 17·6 per cent. That was, a tenant whose rent was £100 a year got £3 14 s. less by agreement than he got in Court, but it was a better bargain for him to agree because he lost twice as much in litigation. But the number of cases in Ireland where rents were over £100 a year was comparatively few. In the whole of Ireland there were 490,000 holdings of which only 15,000 had a Poor Law valuation of £100 and only 25,000 a Poor Law valuation of £50. Taking the Poor Law valuation as two-thirds of the rent it would give about 34,000 tenants whose farms were over £50. That was, it would make a difference to them of £1 17 s. The agreements which put £1 17 s. more rent upon them were to be considered so iniquitous and unjust that they were not to be a basis on which the zones should operate. A more preposterous or unfortunate contention could not be urged. Therefore, he said that the case against the zones on account of the rent having been fixed by agreement was as flimsy as the erosion.
What was the last ground? He was
780
anxious by his Amendment to preserve the zones, and he had framed the Amendment so as to remove the only blot which had been discovered in the zone system. He was anxious to preserve the Act of 1903 because, as he had said, the more it was preserved the more certain would be the steady and wise progress to the legitimate fulfilment of that social revolution of which it had laid down the lines. He was anxious that any semblance of a blot which had been pointed out in the operation of the zones should be removed, and he had, therefore, put down the second part of his Amendment. He had observed in reading the discussion in another place that whenever the Chief Secretary for Ireland alluded to Weir's case —the fraud of Weir's case, the iniquity of Weir's case—the right hon. gentleman nearly wept. To think that any human being should be guilty of the depravity that had been revealed in Weir's case appeared to the right hon. gentleman to be something humiliating.
What was Weir's case? It was this. A man whose tenants were in arrear for ten or eleven years made an arrangement with them that they should pay half a year's rent, that half a year's rent should be forgiven, and that two or three years rent should be added to the purchase money. Under the 35th section of the Act of 1896, in order that the tenant might start fair, it was provided that all arrears should be abolished and the tenant was to be able to enter into his new freehold free from all encumbrances. It was very difficult in the case of a tenant in arrear to prevent the landlord to whom the arrears were due saying: "If you will give me twenty-three years purchase I will forgive all arrears." What did the unfortunate Weir do? He said, "I will give you two or three years more purchase." He did not know that other noble Lords would agree with him, but he himself thought that was a mistake. It was quite clear it was intended that one year's arrears should be included in the purchase money, because Section 24 of the Act of 1903 stated that it would be legitimate to pay to the tenant for life one year's arrears out of the purchase money. He concluded that meant that a sum in respect of one year's arrears was in the purchase money, otherwise it would be very unfair to take it out. His Amendment restricting them to one year's arrears did

781
little more, therefore, than provide expressly for what was provided impliedly by Section 24 of the Act of 1903.
He was not at all indifferent to the fever that the principle of privilege had recently excited in another place. It appeared that if anything noble Lords did increase in any way the burden of the subject, no matter how indirectly, it was to be construed as a breach of privilege. He quite agreed that if the direct object was to increase the burden it was a breach of privilege, but as matters stood now it seemed to him that everything was looked upon as a breach of privilege that indirectly increased the burden of the subject. If one of their Lordships brought in a Bill and thereby increased the expenditure on printing, or spoke at the length he had done and in that way increased the gas bill, he supposed it might be regarded as adding to the burden of the subject, and therefore a breach of privilege. If it was thought that his Amendment fell under that ban he should be quite willing to withdraw it and bring it up as a new clause and let it take its chance, and to support his noble friend Lord Midleton in the proposal he had put on the Paper to strike out Clause 14.
He only wished to say one thing in conclusion. He knew it would be said—This only gives power to the Commissioners to do this thing, and of course the Commissioners in any event would do everything that is right; the Government intends this thing and the Government intends that thing; and the Commissioners wish this thing and the Commissioners wish that thing. It had always struck him, however, that of all the futile operations in which human beings could indulge none was more futile than discussing what the Government intended in a Bill that they brought in, except the object were to persuade or coerce the Government into using language that exactly expressed their intentions and nothing more. Therefore when the Government said they did not intend to give this power to the Commissioners his answer was that their intention did not matter but what mattered was what the Bill did. The Statute gave absolute power to the Commissioners to apply the zones or not whenever they had a suspicion that the security was insufficient, or that the price was too high.
782
The whole value of the system would be defeated if the Amendment were not carried. He ought to have said that in the case of second-term rents, the figures were quite as remarkable. The decisions by agreement were 78,880 and the average reduction 20·4. The second-term rents fixed by agreement were 49,529 and the average reduction about 17·5.
He would like to know what any person could say against it if two litigant parties —the landlords on one side and the tenants on the other—instead of going into Court, employing persons to represent them and getting expert witnesses to prove the value of different improvements, should come to an arrangement and say, "Very well, we will agree. We are moderate men. We will divide the difference and select the figure that fixes the rent, instead of running all the risks of litigants." He submitted that he had proved his point that this proposal of the Government did destroy the substantial and beneficial features of the zones. Without doubt it overturned the zone system, and in doing that it caused a grave and serious injury to the progress of the agrarian revolution in Ireland.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 17, to leave out from the word 'satisfied' to the end of subsection (1), and to insert the words 'that a sum exceeding one year's rent of the holding has been added to the purchase money thereof, in respect of arrears of rent due thereout, may refuse to sanction the advance, unless the parties to the agreement of purchase and sale consent that the purchase money shall be reduced by the amount of such excess over one year's rent. On such consent being given the said agreement shall be varied accordingly, and the application dealt with under the aforesaid subsection in its proper order as if the reduced sum had been the whole of the purchase money, and the application had been originally made in respect of that sum. The refusal to make the advance on the ground aforesaid must be concurred in by the Judicial Commissioner.'"—(Lord Atkinson.)
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that as his Amendment which came afterwards included as one of its component parts the proposal which the noble and learned Lord made in his Amendment perhaps their Lordships would allow him at that point of time to make the remarks which he should make later on. He did not yield one inch to the noble and learned Lord in his respect for the zones. He knew more about the zones than did the noble and

783
learned Lord. He was present when the idea of the zones was first elaborated and when that idea was reduced into official language, and it was after that was done, and when the idea and conception of the zones had assumed pretty nearly the form they now held, that they were submitted to the noble and learned Lord for his consideration. He agreed with the noble and learned Lord in thinking that the zones were the foundation of the Land Act of 1903, and he would be the last person to support any proposal which would attempt in the least degree to interfere with the real meaning of the zones. When the Act of 1903 was brought into operation it came to pass that efforts were made to circumvent the zones. The first occasion on which the Land Commission saw that the zones might be circumvented was in the well-known Kinvara case. The circumstances of that case were these. Under the former Land Acts, before the Act of 1903 was brought into operation, an effort was made to effect a sale of that estate to the tenants. Under the old practice it was essential that that arrangement should be subjected to the consideration and inspection of the Land Commission, and that the terms agreed upon between the parties should be verified by a report of an inspector from the Land Commission. The inspector went down, saw the land, and reported.
He did not carry in his mind the exact figures, but the following was a correct representation of the facts. The parties agreed to sell and purchase for, say, £5,000, but the inspector of the Land Commission reported that the estate was security for no more than £4,000, Then the sale proceedings stopped. When the Act of 1903 came into operation the parties agreed to sell and buy within the zones. On the basis of judicial agreements out of court, and relying on the zones as fettering the discretion of the Estates Commissioners, an application was made for an advance of, say, £8,000. Here was a case in which after a legal inspection it was declared that no more than £4,000 could be advanced with security to the State, but taking advantage of the zones an application was made for £8,000. The Estates Commissioners were told, as the noble and learned Lord had told their Lordships that night, that they had no discretion but must under the law advance the money within the zones. The Estates Commissioners in the interests of the public taxpayers endeavoured to see
784
some way out of the difficulty; some way of avoiding such a gross sacrifice of the taxpayers' money. It was then they invented the plan of not declaring the property an estate, of withholding their declaration of the property as an estate until they had made a full investigation. On investigation the transaction appeared in its true light. But now it has been I ruled by the highest Court of Appeal in Ireland that the Estates Commissioners acted illegally, and if the law on the point is not changed such attacks on the Public Treasury will be repeated.
The noble and learned Lord said that the zones were the foundation of the Act of 1903, and it was like touching the Ark of the Covenant to lay hands on them. He (Lord MacDonnell) said too that the zones were the foundation of the Act of 1903, but he also said that wherever there was an appearance or a possibility of turning a proper and correct law into a perversion of justice and into a fraud on the public revenue it was the duty of public officers to see that such a thing should not be carried through. Moreover it was the duty of the Legislature to see that the evils brought into notice in that way should be corrected, and that was what was proposed to be done on the present occasion. The noble and learned Lord stated that there were four reasons brought forward for this proposal, and he argued that they were futile and fatuous. One of those reasons was what the noble and learned Lord himself had admitted—namely, that if the price agreed upon included more than one year's rent there was a sufficient and adequate ground for making an inquiry. The second reason was that the holding was a congested holding within the meaning of this Bill. That was nothing more than embodying in this Bill what already existed in a certain form in the Act of 1903. The first section excluded congested estates in certain conditions from the zone system, and the endeavour was now being made to see that in this respect there should be no evasion of the Act in the future.
The noble and learned Lord also objected that rent fixed by agreement or consent should not in any case be departed from. He (Lord MacDonnell) had endeavoured to explain the frauds against which precautions should be taken, and the present proposal was an attempt to embody in the

785
law these precautions. The noble and learned Lord made light of deterioration arising in holdings owing to bog-slides and things of that description. There had been instances recently in the West of Ireland of considerable tracts of country being completely destroyed by bog-slides. But bog-slides were not the only physical causes which occasioned deterioration in holdings. Inudation in the centre of Ireland had largely caused injury to holdings, and that was a matter which naturally ought to be taken into consideration before the State advanced considerable sums of money for the purchase of land.
LORD ATKINSON: Surely all that was considered when the rents were fixed.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD*LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said these points seemed to him to justify the conclusion that on such a revision of the Land Act as was now being made the question whether the conception of the zones should be maintained in the original shape or should be subjected to modification was one for the consideration of their Lordships. When the conception of the zones was first introduced it was a novel conception, and he was willing to confess that any rents agreed to by consent before the Act of 1903 came into operation should be excluded. But since the Act of 1903 came into operation efforts had been made—and having been made in the past would probably be made in the future—to escape the restriction of the zones and to obtain advances upon estates for which the estates themselves were not really security. He thought they were bound in the public interest, in the interest of the general taxpayer, to take such reasonable precautions as they could to see that public money was not advanced on inadequate security. That was entirely in accordance with the conception of the zones, and he thought the precautions now proposed to be taken were within the original idea of the Act of 1903.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO said the noble Lord opposite, Lord MacDonnell, designated the Kinvara case as a fraud, and also stated that he knew more about the zones than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson. The Kinvara case was not a fraud, and the parties were acting quite within legal limits. The way in which the judicial rents came about was that the parties had settled
786
out of Court, and that was a system well known in Ireland. The noble Lord opposite not only said that he knew all about the zones, but that practically he had settled them.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I did not say I had settled them.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO begged the noble Lord's pardon. At all events, the noble Lord said the Kinvara case was a fraud. How on earth could that case be a fraud when it was within the purview of the Act of 1903, with the framing of which the noble Lord opposite had as much to do as a great many noble Lords. When the noble Lord got up and stated that the case was a fraud, he knew as well as possible that the tenants settled their differences out of Court. That was the very point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, who said the reason why a great peace had come over Ireland was that the system had led to the settling of differences out of Court. He did not follow the object of the noble Lord, Lord Mac-Donnell, at all. He thought it could only be to throw grit into the mill and to cause dissension in their Lordships' arguments for no reason whatever.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN did not suppose that anybody was a stronger champion of the zones than himself. He could not imagine that the 1903 Act or any other Act could possibly work with ordinary speed without some kind of zone system within which it must be assumed the bargain was fair and should be carried out. He did not wish particularly to argue that point, because as he endeavoured to explain on the Second Reading he was so firmly convinced that nothing their Lordships' House could do would make this into a workable Bill that he did not take much interest in any Amendments which could be moved. All he had risen to say was that he thought the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, was quite correct in the allusions he made to the Land Conference, of which he (Lord Dunraven) had the honour to be chairman. The noble and learned Lord had alluded to the four gentlemen who represented the tenants at that conference, but as those gentlemen could not, of course, say anything in their Lordships' House he would like to be very guarded in what he said on the matter. He could not remember the exact words of the recommendation on

787
the Land Conference, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, was quite correct in saying that they took second term rents as being the proper basis of income. He thought the exact words they used were "Second-term rents or their fair equivalent." The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, had shown that judicial rents fixed by agreement were the fair equivalent of rents fixed in Court, but at the same time he (Lord Dunraven) would not like to let that pass without saying that that was not stated in the Land Conference report. All they said was, "Second-term rents or their fair equivalent," their idea being that a fair equivalent would be first-term rents graded to second term rents—first-term rents fixed after 1896—and non-judicial rents, of course, graded also. Whether rents fixed out of Court were to be considered a fair equivalent was a matter he did not wish to go into. They were not absolutely said to be a fair equivalent by the Land Conference, although probably that was the case.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I confess I am somewhat surprised at the degree of opposition which this harmless proposal, as it seems to us, embodied in Clause 14 has given rise to. More particularly I am surprised at the speech of the noble and learned Lord, who I think has left the House, exhausted by the effort of a lifet me. My surprise is due to the line which the noble and learned Lord took in treating this as a matter of the very first importance. The noble and learned Lord, as we know, can make a most able speech on any subject, but I confess that this very simple and prosaic clause hardly seemed to me to demand the treatment which it has received from him in an oration at any rate adequate in length and delivered almost in the manner of Shiel or Grattan. I ascribe the fire which the noble and learned Lord introduced into his speech to two reasons. In the first place, he is convinced, I think, that we have some deadly design against the zones as an institution. He founds that, I suppose, on the fact that some Parliamentary representatives in Ireland are well known to dislike the zone system. Why he should assume that we who have continually stated the contrary, and have shown by the manner in which this clause is framed that we do not intend to depart from the zone system, share that extreme view I confess I am altogether at a loss to understand. The second reason is the profound, and, as I think, most unrea-
788
sonable mistrust which the noble and learned Lord has shown, not only in this debate, but in many previous debates, of the Estates Commissioners.
The noble and learned Lord accuses us of leaving a discretion to the Estates Commissioners. We are charged with believing that the Estates Commissioners will act like reasonable and sensible men. The noble and learned Lord desires to see the Estates Commissioners fettered and handcuffed by every conceivable restriction which can be placed in an Act of Parliament because of that mistrust which has become an absolute obsession with him, and which I am certain it is hopeless to attempt to remove by argument. The noble and learned Lord dwelt at some length on the fact that the interest of the State was in all cases secured under the zones and I suppose he would say in almost any agreement, by the fact that the subject that is parted with by the sale is only the landlord's interest and that the tenants' interest always remains available in the background. I do not think that is an argument which can be generally used. In relation to a single case you may use that argument, but you cannot venture to use it as regards a class of cases simply because the State cannot in practice sell up any number of tenants, and if the cases became frequent where the security provided by the landlord's interest as represented by the purchase annuity became inadequate the State could not as a matter of practice really recoup itself by putting the tenant's interest into the market. The noble and learned Lord, with a purpose which I could not entirely follow, devoted no small part of his speech to a criticism of the operations of the Land Act of 1881. He spoke of the preposterous results arrived at by the judicial fixing of the rents. Yet those preposterous results, if you please, are the precise basis on which the zone system is founded. The zone system, to which noble Lords attach, and I think rightly attach, great importance, is founded on the fact that judicial rents were fixed. I may remind noble Lords opposite that when there is a talk about the monstrosity of the system of dual ownership and the fixing of rents they should remember that without that system of the fixing of rents no conceivable zone system of land purchase could have been introduced in Ireland.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: We should not have wanted it.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the noble Earl's recollection does not go back to the bad times in Ireland, and that he is fortunate enough not to remember them. The noble Earl would be quite content if no legislation had taken place at all in 1881, and if the then land system in Ireland had been carried on in all its glory. In that he differs from the noble and learned Lord who, though he dislikes the operation of the Act of 1881, yet admits that some such measure was necessary.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The noble Earl the Leader of the House is attributing a certain opinion to me which I do not hold. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, that legislation was necessary in 1881, but that the legislation which was passed was extremely bad.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl can develop that argument at any length he pleases on a future occasion. My noble friend behind me has relieved me from a considerable part of my task, because he stated very clearly and fully what are the reasons which made him think there were other cases besides the cases of one year's arrears which ought to be considered by the Estates Commissioners. What has happened under the zone system? The zone system is, as all will agree, of the greatest value, and I am prepared to go so far as to say that by its ease and labour-saving qualities it may be regarded as the basis, the groundwork, of the operations of the Act of 1903. But as always happens in such cases people look out for loopholes, and try to evade. It is precisely the same kind of thing as occurs when it is a question of charging a duty, whether it be a death duty or a duty on some commodity. People look round to see if they can avoid it. There have been some cases quite open and above board to which I do not desire to attach harsh terms, because they have been carried out within the law of the land. But they have constituted evasions of that law, and as such in our opinion ought to be prevented. It is believed by those who ought to know that those cases are considerably more frequent than any published results enable us to say. I think it stands to reason it must be so, because when it is found out that, for instance, by going through the simple process of handing over a sum of money to the tenants you can increase the sum you receive in the way of
790
bonus and it occurs to somebody to do that it is likely subsequently to occur to a great many other people to follow that example.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY said that stress was laid on that point in a previous debate, and he then asked if they could be given some specific cases. Perhaps the noble Earl could give them some instances now.
THE EARL OF CREWE: There is the case of Crosbie's estate. In that case the owner agreed to sell to the tenants for a certain price. This was an open and above-board transaction, because the owner himself said he had done it. It was arranged between him and his tenants that some further sums should be added to the aggregate price, still remaining, of course, within the zone limits. The total was then treated as the purchase money. As soon as the sale was completed the owner was to pay to the tenant the additional sums. Those sums certainly did not form part of the real purchase money in the strict sense, but the owner got his twelve per cent. bonus on those additional sums and the tenants received in addition to an advance of the actual purchase money a sum in cash. There was no concealment about the case. It was a perfectly legal transaction, and may have been carried out in a great number of other cases. But I think all your Lordships will agree that it is a case which somehow or other ought to be stopped, because an advance of public money ought not to be made on those terms and in that manner. I repeat once more that the sole object of this provision as it stands in the Bill is to close these loopholes. Certainly the Estates Commissioners have no desire, although the: noble and learned Lord will not believe it, to stop the working of the zone system. We thought it safe and reasonable to leave a discretion to the Estates Commissioners, on that subject. My noble friend behind me has adopted a different course, and attempts in his Amendment, to which, perhaps by leave of the Committee, I may allude, to deal with the matter on other lines. He has mentioned various cases in which inquiry is necessary. I am not sure he covers the whole ground, because I fancy there might be cases in which there were considerable arrears which would demand investigation by the Estates Commissioners, but yet would not fall within my noble friend's list. There might be

791
cases where the arrears were so large that even though they did not enter into the actual purchase scheme, they might show that the tenant was not the kind of person to whom an advance of public money ought to be made. That is a case which hardly seems to me to be covered by my noble friend's Amendment. Then there is the further point which was alluded to after most of your Lordships had left the House before we adjourned. I refer to the case in which under the sliding scale for the provision of the bonus a tenant for life would accept a too low number of years purchase in order to pocket the bonus on the larger scale. That is just the case where—supposing it to be impossible or undesirable to prevent that by saying that the bonus on the low scale ought to be added to the corpus of the estate and invested for the benefit of the remainder man—the Estates Commissioners might interfere with advantage. I think I need not dwell any longer on this clause. I notice that the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, has put down a somewhat different Amendment from that proposed by the noble and learned Lord opposite. I do not know whether the noble Marquess proposes to move it or not, but in any event perhaps I had better defer any further observation until I see what course he takes.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON did not know that the speech which the Leader of the House had just addressed to their Lordships had entirely emancipated them from the difficulties in which they stood. They had heard a most able and convincing speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, which had made it perfectly clear that he for one conceived that the whole benefit of the Act of 1903 would be lost if the zone system were to be done away with. The noble and learned Lord gave them admirable reasons why, in the majority of instances, the cases which might be admitted under the clause as the Government had presented it should certainly not be admitted. In the closing part of his speech the noble and learned Lord made the suggestion which was embodied in the Amendment he had laid before the House, that they might, by limiting the matter to one year's arrears, stop one of the objections which had been raised to the zone system. There, again, they were, faced, as they had been faced ever since they began discussing this Bill,
792
with the possibility that an Amendment which was perfectly legitimate and bona fide would be ruled out in the other House on the ground of privilege. Their Lordships would realise that to say the price should include one year's arrears might be held in the other House of Parliament to be an appropriation of funds to a purpose not contemplated in the Bill as it came before their Lordships. That was a very serious matter. To put it perfectly plainly, if they should embody the Amendment of his noble and learned friend in the Bill and that view should be taken, the Bill would be returned to their Lordships' House as it stood and their Lordships, so far as he knew, would have no further power of considering and altering the clause. He thought it would be not merely a great blemish in the present Bill, but would be practically abrogating one of the two main principles on which the Act of 1903 was based, and on which it had achieved the phenomenal success which they were discussing that night. They were faced on the other hand with the counsels of those who assured them they were in favour of the zone system. Perhaps he might be allowed first of all to allude to the speech, and the Amendment which had been put on the Paper, by the noble Lord opposite, Lord MacDonnell. He would wish to say on behalf of those Irish landlords and others who were in favour of the Act of 1903 that he thought they owed a deep debt of gratitude to Lord MacDonnell who, he believed, was in theory in favour of the principle of zones, for having put his views and the method by which he made good that theory on the Paper of their Lordships' House.
What was the principle of zones? It was, as the noble and learned Lord had explained, the withdrawal from the purview of the Commissioners of the main agreements between landlord and tenant based on decisions of Land Courts, which were held binding upon the landlord so long as it was a question of rent, but which some people did not wish to hold binding upon him when it was a question of purchase. It was also protective of those voluntary agreements between landlord and tenant which were the main object of the promoters of the Act of 1881, and of no one more so than Mr. Gladstone himself. After hearing him cheer the sentiments of Mr. Gladstone to the echo time after time, he regretted to hear the Lord Chancellor

793
deliver himself a few nights ago in direct opposition to the views of his former leader. He said that in no spirit of disrespect, but merely to show what effect the passing of time had upon the minds of men. These transactions were withdrawn from the Courts not from any desire to benefit one party or the other, but simply to avoid litigation and that ill-feeling which had characterised so many of their dealings in land in Ireland. How did the noble Lord the late Under-Secretary propose to deal with these matters? First of all, he proposed that they were to be within the purview of the Court again for fresh settlement. He proposed that when application was made for an advance of the whole purchase money of any holding the Land Commission might make inquiry if they were satisfied that the judicial rent was fixed by agreement or consent and not after judicial inquiry in Court. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant told the House of Commons a few weeks ago that the number of judicial rents fixed by agreement and without inquiry by the Court amounted to one-third of the whole rents of Ireland. Therefore at one fell swoop the noble Lord proposed to bring within the purview of the Court again one-third of the whole rents in value which were left to be settled in Ireland.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said he should like to add, after the word "consent" in his Amendment, the words "after the passing of the Act of 1903."
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON pointed out that the Act of 1903 did not appear in the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said he would like to add it.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON was very glad to hear the noble Lord say that. As the Amendment stood, however, one-third of the whole rents in Ireland fixed by agreement and consent were to be brought within the purview of the Estates Commissioners, who were especially, under the Act of 1903 and the zone system, not to have regard to those agreements and consents. If they looked at subsection (c) in the noble Lord's Amendment their Lordships would see that the Land Commission might make inquiry if the holding was a congested holding "within the
794
meaning of this Act." Under the Bill nearly one-third of the whole land of Ireland was to be added to the congested districts. Therefore, as regarded one-third of the whole area of Ireland the-land was to be taken away from the zone system and was to be added to the system which was to come under the purview of the Estates Commissioners. Under subsection (b) of Lord MacDonnell's Amendment on the Paper it was laid down that the Land Commission should come in if the price agreed upon included more than one year's arrears of rent. He distrusted altogether these reservations made as regarded one year's arrears of rent. How were they going to tell what was rent and what was arrears? Everybody who had had to deal with Irish tenants knew there were many cases where the tenant would gladly give additional years' purchase if told that it was to wipe off his arrears. He did not know how it would be possible for a judicial body to decide whether a sum of years' purchase which came within that zone which was regarded as exempted from criticism by the Act of 1903 was made up of years' purchase, or of arrears added to a minimum number of years' purchase together making up a sum which left the tenant with something like twenty-five per cent, less to pay than he had to pay before.
Then in Lord MacDonnell's Amendment there was subsection (d) which empowered the Land Commission to interfere if since the judicial rent was fixed the holding had permanently deteriorated owing to physical causes beyond the control of the tenant. He believed there had been certain cases of land slides, but the objection he had to the words was that they might force the Estates Commissioners to consider themselves bound to make a complete inspection of each holding to see whether such physical deterioration had taken place. The noble Lord might be one of the advocates of the zone system, but he had certainly in the. Amendment he had put before the House dissembled his love for that system to such an extent that his proposals would unquestionably bring within the purview of the Commissioners half or three-quarters of all the estates which might hereafter be submitted to them.
Noble Lords had heard arguments in the other House as to the effect of the zone system on the tenants, but he did not

795
think they need trouble themselves very much about them. Mr. Dillon had told them that most of the rents had been 40 per cent. higher than they ought to have been for purposes of purchase. He spoke with all respect of the opinions of those who guided the counsels of the national directory, but he could not help remembering that the national directory on September 1, 1908, by a unanimous vote denounced the zone system as fatal to the interests of the tenant. That was at a meeting in Dublin, and it was published before all their eyes as showing the necessity for a complete change, in the new Bill, from the Act of 1903. During the months of September and October, 1908, after that unanimous denunciation by the national directory, 46,500 applications were put in, involving £13,500,000, to buy under the zone system. Those applications amounted in all to nearly two-thirds of the whole applications to purchase made during thirty-eight years under the previous Purchase Acts. That was within two months after the severe pressure of the leaders of the Irish party to try and prove to Parliament that the zone system was a betrayal of the rights of the tenants.
From the point of view of the British taxpayer there, again, he could not help feeling that the Lord Chancellor insufficiently voiced the feelings of his colleagues in the persuasive speech he made to their Lordships a few nights ago. He thought the noble and learned Lord went far beyond justice or expediency in the view which he expressed. In alluding to the attitude of the Lord Chancellor and that of his colleagues he was thinking of the days when Mr. Gladstone and the leaders of that Party tied themselves to a proposition that a Land Court in Ireland would lead to the settlement of a number of these cases, and that after that the vast majority of agreements would be made without recourse to a Land Court and by the voluntary system of which the Liberal Party had always been the exponents. But the Lord Chancellor spoke with sorrow of the agreements made by consent, which had not been made the subject of judicial inquiry, and which, he urged on behalf of the taxpayer, should be made the subject of judicial inquiry before they become the subject of purchase.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR said he thought the voluntary system was abso-
796
lutely essential to the working of the Act of 1903, and he had never said a word to the contrary. What he said was this, "The zone system is admirable, but if you have rents fixed by agreement which have not been the subject of judicial supervision then it does not necessarily follow that they will give the security which you would have under a zone system if there had been judicial supervision"; and he also said, "In a few cases it may be necessary to re-open the inquiry." That was all he said.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON rejoined that in other words what that really meant was, "You can touch the decision of the Land Courts, but you cannot touch the voluntary agreement between landlord and tenant." But that did not represent the view of the Chief Secretary. The view of the right hon. gentleman was that granted they had been to the Court, because they still had an opportunity of going into the Court every fifteen years, they could not be certain they had reached the bedrock at which the nation would be wise to purchase. The Chief Secretary used words which were unfortunate, and for one in his position unwise. The Chief Secretary said that by a scheme in Ireland by which rents were reduced every few years the second-term rents would not be fixed rents. He (Viscount Midleton) objected to the words "were reduced" every few years. They were "revised" every few years. The Chief Secretary had no right to say that the scheme of any Bill in Ireland was to prevent rents being reduced every few years, and that they could not take the present rent as being a fair margin on which to purchase. The right hon. gentleman also said very strongly that one-third of the judicial rents was fixed out of Court by agreement, and he urged that as a reason for the present Bill. What he (Viscount Midleton) would urge upon their Lordships was not to accept the view that everything that was done must necessarily be done under the sanction of a Court or else it could not possibly have proper validity for a permanent settlement. They had had a good many measures lately which proposed to bring all the relations between man and man in this country under the purview of a Government official. The old doctrine of the Liberal Party was that individual freedom and liberty was the maxim on which the Constitution of this country was

797
founded. That was being completely changed. It used to be said of a distinguished President of the Board of Trade who had brought in a great Act of Bankruptcy that his idea was that the greatest happiness that could come to his fellow citizens was to become bankrupt under his Bill. In the same way it seemed to be the view of many heads of Departments in the present Government that the greatest happiness of their fellow citizens was not voluntary agreement between man and man as to property, hours of labour, or the conditions of their service, but official sanction. It would be a bad day for Ireland if they went back on the Act of 1903. He believed this clause would bring them back to the necessity for the interposition of the already overworked Estates Commissioners.
Speaking from the point of view of the British taxpayer, he urged on the attention of their Lordships the following facts. The first was that whether there were arrears added to the rent or not, so long as they had the protection of the zones they knew that between twenty to forty per cent. of the rent, the rent already reduced by thirty-five per cent. all over Ireland, would be reduced in the case of the new rents or annuities which went as security to the State. The second point was that they had believed that the immense interest of the tenant, an interest which in the course of the last year, as a number of statistics would show, had been sold in the case of those who had already become purchasers for sums varying from five to thirty years purchase. That was an additional security to the State; and beyond that, again, there was the fact that under the existing rents, reduced as they had been since 1881, the farmers of Ireland had found themselves able to raise their contributions in the Savings Banks by nearly 250 per cent. That at least proved that the existing rents, now to be further reduced on purchase by twenty-five per cent., had not, on the whole, been felt oppressively by the tenantry. If there had been hard cases such as had been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, he thought the matter for astonishment was that there had been so few in such a great number of transactions. He did not deny that they might find here and there a case in which the landowner and tenant had together
798
agreed to put aside a certain number of years' purchase of arrears which probably, if they were submitted to that House, would not pass muster. If such extreme cases required to be provided against he did not think members on that side of the House would in any way make difficulties if it were held that the Estates Commissioners should state a case for the Supreme Court where they believed there was fraud or some undue action. Words to that effect would require to be carefully considered, but what he urged upon their Lordships was not to break down the zone system by what seemed to be a very small change but which might result in completely paralysing that which had gone so far to carry through the most difficult negotiations with success and satisfaction to both parties. He did not believe that he was arguing this case on behalf of the landlords. He believed that the zone system had become a sort of bedrock for both parties in Ireland. It had saved delays and expense and also litigation and bad feeling, and if they replaced it by the old system they must also denude the, new system of that which had gone so far to render the Act of 1903 the most successful piece of legislation which they had seen in their time in Ireland.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR said it was of the utmost importance in debates, especially in Committee, to appreciate what was the controversy between them. This discussion had ranged over the Act of 1881 and all the old, unhappy controversies that were passed. What they were discussing was an Amendment to a clause relating to the zone system. Why should they multiply controversies, so far, at all events, as intention was concerned? When noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House Said they wished to maintain the zone system, they, on the Government side said, and had always said, that they also wished to maintain the zone system. Noble Lords might say that their words did not provide for that, but let them show that it was so. But what was the use, if he might respectfully say so, of denouncing an opinion which they repudiated and which they had all along said they took no part or lot in? As far as his speech of the other evening was concerned, what he said about the zone system was contained in three minutes of a speech covering the whole ground.
What he said was this, that the zone system

799
was a system under which they prevented the necessity for re-opening valuations by accepting as a proper basis for a purchase price the judicial rents that had been fixed, provided the number of years' purchase was within certain limits. He believed that he had accurately represented what the zone system was. He then said that he wished to maintain it, but that when there were cases in which it was necessary to re-open the question they should not be bound by the purchase prices being within the zone, because in the circumstances they were not a fair security for the Government advancing the money. No one wanted to tear up agreements. It was not a question of tearing up agreements. The landlord and the tenant made their agreement and if they liked to carry it out themselves they could do so; but when they came to a third party, the State, and asked to have a certain sum of money advanced, it was reasonable that the State should have an opportunity of saying whether they thought the security was enough. That was the whole proposition. While they were perfectly willing and entirely agreed that within the zones the purchase price agreed by the parties might in the ordinary course in the great multitude of cases, be accepted and acted upon as it had been in the past, experience had shown that there ought to be in some given circumstances an opportunity for the State to investigate whether, in that particular case, the bargain was a sufficient security for the State. That was all they had said; they had said nothing more of any kind. That was not tearing up agreements.
The curious thing was that all those who had been most severe in their criticism were themselves in favour of re-opening the zone in some circumstances. The very Amendment they were considering proposed to re-open the zone. His noble and learned friend who initiated the discussion proposed that it should be re-opened if the purchase money included more than a year's arrears. Therefore he did not object to re-opening the zone system in some circumstances. The noble Lord, Viscount Midleton, had said that if there were such things as had been referred to they ought to be included in the case stated for the opinion of the superior Courts. But it was only questions of law that could ever be stated in that way. Questions of fact were never stated for the opinion of a superior Court. The point was that if
800
cases of fraud or of duress, or reasonable suspicions otherwise should come to the knowledge of the Commissioners they should be at liberty to make inquiry into the circumstances which now they could not do, and if they thought the circumstances justified then they might refuse to make the advance in the interests of the State and in the interests of security.
He had stated the controversy between them. There was no controversy between them as to maintaining the zone and none upon the point that in some circumstances the zone ought to be re-opened. But there was a difference between them as to the nature of the circumstances under which the zones might be re-opened. The Amendment of the noble and learned Lord proposed that it should be so if the purchase price included more than a year's arrears. They did not think that sufficient. It would not deal with the particular case given by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, a case in which there was an agreement between landlord and tenant for a particular price; they then agreed to add a year or two years purchase, and then, after the money had been advanced, the two years was to be handed over to the tenant and yet the landlord was to keep the twelve per cent. bonus upon that whole sum. Surely every man who wanted fair and honest dealing and proper and reasonable protection for the State would say that that case ought to be open to consideration and inquiry and ought to be checked. But the noble and learned Lord's Amendment would not allow them to go into a case of that kind.
It was not the case that his noble friend behind him (Lord MacDonnell) proposed to re-open all rents which had not been the subject of judicial investigation. The noble Viscount was entirely mistaken about that. There was a power to do so if the Commissioners were satisfied that those questions existed. Let them understand the proposition. Was it to be said that these zones were never to be re-opened at all, or would they not be better occupied in inquiring under what circumstances they ought to be re-opened? Their proposal was put in general terms. It left it to the discretion of the Commissioners as, indeed, many things in the Irish Land Act of 1903 were left to the Commissioners—men every one of whom was appointed by the present Government's political opponents, and who,

801
he believed, possessed the confidence of the community. At all events if noble Lords did not like these words let them suggest some better. The words were—
"If the Land Commission are satisfied that circumstances exist which, in their opinion, necessitate inquiring as to the security for the advance or the equity of the price."
He ventured to think that was a modest proposal on the part of those who had to advance the money. It was a modest proposal that they should be at liberty to inquire in regard to the security for the money they were asked to advance when special circumstances were brought to their attention pointing to the necessity for making an inquiry. He deliberately refrained from expressing any opinion as to the previous Acts or as to the general success of the last Act. He did not grudge any of its authors its success; but he respectfully suggested that they ought, in a businesslike way, to look at what the Amendment meant and what the clause was to which it was an Amendment, instead of placing rather a heavy censure upon the Government for intentions which they really did not harbour and had not the least intention of carrying into effect either by Act of Parliament or otherwise.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON did not think the Lord Chancellor did justice to the Amendment. So far as he could follow him, he had justified an Amendment enabling the Commissioners to inquire as to the security of the State and had said nothing to justify their inquiring as to the equity of price.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR said the criticism was perfectly just. The whole debate had proceeded upon re-opening the zones, and re-opening the zones with a view to security. That must be his excuse. He would say only one word about the other side. This clause contained a proposal authorising the re-opening if the Land Commissioners were satisfied that circumstances existed which, in their opinion, necessitated inquiry as to the security for the advance or the equity of price. He had dealt with the security for the advance. As regarded equity of price, it might apply in two ways. The words were taken from Mr. Wyndham's Act of 1903. It included two things. In the first place under this Bill or any system in which the bonus went to the credit entirely of the tenant for life and
802
did not become part of the purchase money there was a danger that he might sacrifice the ultimate interest, that of the remainder man, to his own interest. If, for example, he were an old man who would not live very long he might be tempted to sell at a price which was unfair to the remainder man because he would get twelve per cent., or whatever the percentage was, into his own pocket upon the purchase price. That was one thing which ought to be the subject of protection. There was another thing—where there was unfairness or duress; for example, unfairness as between the landlord and the tenant. Where there was such unfairness the State ought to say, "We will not sanction a transaction which it based upon oppression of the tenant by the landlord." It was held by the Irish Courts that the language used by Mr. Wyndham's Act about equity of price only related to the first of those kind of things that it did enable the Court to protect the remainder man against the tenant for life but did not entitle the Court to protect the tenant against oppression by the landlord. It was their intention that if there were circumstances showing unfairness, fraud, or duress in either of those relations, in those cases the zone might be re-opened.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said he was very glad to have given his noble and learned friend the opportunity of supplementing his argument. The noble and learned Lord now said that they were to inquire into prices because the price might be too small and hit the remainder man. His answer was that that was provided for by the scale of the zones; it could never occur within the zones. The words "equity of price" were not used in the Act of 1903 with regard to any case within the zones at all. The words were properly used in order to protect the interest of the remainder man in cases falling without the zones, and for the obvious reason that the scale in the zones protected the remainder man. The words "equity of price" had never been interpreted to mean that the landlord and tenant might not contract. The tenant was already protected against fraud or duress by Section 10 of the Act of 1903. The difference in that Act was that the tenant himself must complain of the fraud or duress, whilst in this Bill where the tenant made no complaint and was perfectly willing to carry out the agreement the Estates Commissioners were to step in and say, "No, we disapprove of the

803
price." That was illustrated by the very first case in which the Commissioners endeavoured to raise the question of what was the meaning of the words "equity of price"—namely, the King-Harman case which arose under Section 5. The Estates Commissioners sought to extend the words "equity to all parties concerned" to include the fixing of rent, or rather the determination whether the price was adequate. It was decided the words did not mean that, but referred to equity as regarded the remainder man. He said the State had no right, when legislation had left the way open to any tenant who complained of duress or fraud, to step in. The particular case to which he referred was a most remarkable case. The tenant and the landlord came into Court and both asked the Commissioners to validate the agreement. The power the Commissioners claimed was, in defiance of the tenant and the landlord, to say whether or not the price was equitable. That was what he (Lord Atkinson) protested against. He said they had no right, where the landlord and tenant agreed, to come in and stand between them. They might have the right to say the State would not protect them, but they had no right to say that they were lunatics or idiots. As regarded the noble Earl who led the House, he did not expect that the noble Earl would have risen so soon, or he could assure him he would not have denied himself the treat of listening to him.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I quite understand.
LORD ATKINSON LORD ATKINSON said the only thing he would ask of Lord Crewe was an apology to the memory of Shiel and Grattan, to whom he understood the noble Earl had made reference in connection with his (Lord Atkinson's) speech. He accepted with the greatest humility, of course, the censure thus mildly conveyed from such a master as the noble Earl. He understood also that the noble Earl had said he thought he (Lord Atkinson) had exhausted himself in his speech. He could assure Lord Crewe that that was not so, and he would endeavour during the progress of the Committee to prove that it was not so.
THE EARL OF MAYO*THE EARL OF MAYO said that the Crosbie case had been mentioned. He could give the House the history of the
804
Crosbie case. The sum involved was £40, which was included in the purchase money for arrears. That was the custom and was allowed to be included under former Acts. It was a mistake on Mr. Crosbie's part. Mr. Crosbie gained no advantage out of it and got no bonus. He asked their Lordships if that was an instance in which they should be asked to re-open the zones—a wretched little case like that where the landlord made a mistake. Was that fair?
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN said he felt in some difficulty about the clause. There were four Amendments which they were obliged to discuss, more or less, at the same time. The noble and learned Lord had one Amendment, his noble friend Lord Londonderry had another, his noble friend opposite had a third, and his noble friend Lord Midleton wished to leave out the clause altogether. None of these propositions seemed satisfactory. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, had admitted that perhaps the wording of the clause in the Bill might be considered a little too general, and rather pressed noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House to suggest other words. He (Lord Dunraven) suggested that if the Government thought the wording of the clause rather too general, it lay with them to suggest better words. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, had told them the tenant was amply protected aleady against intimidation or duress, because it was always open to him to complain. He did not see how, if pressure was put upon the tenant he could, in the circumstances, possibly complain. He did not know whether such a thing had occurred, but it was conceivable that a body of tenants or a tenant head over ears in arrears—perhaps five, six, seven or eight years—might be told that the only escape from that disagreeable situation was to agree to give a larger number of years purchase for the land than they knew the land would be worth. How was it possible for them to complaint? The only result would be that they would be put back into a still worse position, and remain as tenants owing all these arrears. That was the kind of case he imagined the Government wished to guard against. They wished to put words into the Bill that would guard against cases of that kind without leaving everything, as was now done, to the discretion of the Estates Commissioners. If they put in words embodying that, he would support them.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We on this side of the House are ready to accept, without reservation, the assurances that are offered to us from the Benches opposite that noble Lords on those Benches have no desire to get rid of the zones. But we do submit that the clause, as it now stands, or as it was drawn, virtually deprives us of the protection which the zones now afford. I think there is a rather simple way of testing that proposition. As my noble friend Lord Midleton has told the House, there are people in Ireland who have persistently endeavoured to undermine the zones. They have constantly denounced the zones, they have made it their object to get rid of them altogether, and this clause has been acclaimed by them because it is regarded by them as calculated to effect their purpose. What does the noble and learned Lord say? He has no wish to destroy the zones, but—I forget whether the expression was his or Lord Crewe's—it is said that under the present law there are loopholes through which people can pass who desire to bring about improper transactions. What are these so-called loopholes, these opportunities for evasion? There is the question of arrears. My noble and learned friend Lord Atkinson has put a clause on the Paper dealing with arrears in what I should have thought was a very sufficient manner. But if it is the case that there are other instances of the improper addition of arrears to the purchase money, I, for one, am quite ready to consider words that may be designed to meet these cases. Then there is another category, one to which I attach great importance. The noble and learned Lord referred again to-night to the case of agreements entered into by the parties out of Court. I referred to the actual expression he used the other evening, because there was some doubt as to that. The noble and learned Lord described these agreements as being judicial only in form. I do not think, if I may venture to say so, that that was an entirely appropriate description of those agreements. They are very numerous, and they are agreements entirely creditable to the parties who have entered into them. Many of these parties are weary of litigation. They have watched and they have seen what kind of reductions of rent are insisted upon by the Land Commissioners, and having, as they thought, arrived at the standard prevalent in the particular locality to which they belonged they have said "We will agree without going into Court, and we will fix
806
rents on the level which prevails in the neighbourhood." I think it would be a monstrous thing that parties who have entered into these agreements should be penalised, and, as it were, singled out by this clause for differential treatment as against parties who have gone into Court. If you desire to have a special exception in favour of holdings that have suffered from physical causes such as erosion and land slides, we will welcome an exception of that kind without any controversy. There remains one other category, the category of cases in which there has been fraud, duress, or, I think it was suggested, collusion between the parties. I want to ask whether it is not the case that the Courts have already held that the Commissioners not only have the right, but that it is their duty to inquire into the validity of all contracts of tenancy and of all purchase agreements entered into by the parties, and whether the Courts have not also held that it is the duty of the Commissioners to refuse their sanction where any coercion has been suspected. I believe I can refer your Lordships to passages in the magnum opus of Mr. Cherry, one of the Law Officers of the Crown, in which the propositions I have thus stated are clearly set out. There is, I am told, at this moment a Regulation—I believe it is Regulation No. 143—in which it is laid down by the Commissioners that fair rent agreements may be set aside on the ground of fraud or surprise. That, again, is to be found, upon page 143, of the great work of Mr. Cherry.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Marquess mean that either party can have the agreement set aside on the ground of fraud or duress.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not know whether the parties have to move the Commissioners, but I take it the parties have access to the Commissioners. My point is that all those so-called loopholes are either stopped up, or could easily be stopped up. In order to stop them up it is not necessary to give the vague, wide, undefined powers conferred by this clause as it now stands; and therefore, as an earnest of our desire to begin the process of stopping up loopholes I shall be delighted to vote with my noble and learned friend who moved this Amendment. If noble Lords opposite desire to stop up other loopholes, I, and I am sure a great many noble Lords on this side

807
of the House, will be found ready to support them. But to the clause as it now stands we are bound to offer opposition.
On Question, Whether the words pro-
Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES then called upon Lord MacDonnell, who
posed to be left out stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-contents, 136.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Allendale, L.

Hemphill, L.

Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Blyth, L.

Lucas, L.

Boston, L.

Marchamley, L.

Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Carrington, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Pentland, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Eversley, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Chichester, E.

Glantawe, L.

Saye and Sele, L

Liverpool, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Weardale, L.

Haversham, L.

Welby, L.

Airedale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Ellenborough, L.

Northumberland, D.

Wicklow, E.

Faber, L.

Somerset, D.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Wellington, D.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Farnham, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Cross, V.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Ailesbury, M.

De Vesci, V.

Forester. L.

Bath, M.

Falmouth, V.

Grenfell, L.

Camden, M.

Goschen, V.

Hindlip, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Halifax, V.

Hylton, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hill, V.

Inchiquin, L.

Zetland, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Abingdon, E.

Iveagh, V.

Kenyon, L.

Bandon, E.

Milner, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Cadogan, E.

Langford, L.

Camperdown, E.

Abinger, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cawdor, E.

Ampthill, L.

Leconfield, L.

Clarendon, E.

Ardilaun, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Massey, L.

Dartrey, E.

Ashtown, L.

Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

Denbigh, E.

Atkinson, L.

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Derby, E.

Barrymore, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway )

Devon, E.

Belper, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Eldon, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Newton, L.

Essex, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

North, L.

Harrowby, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton)

Northcote, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Carew, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Ilchester, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Castletown, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Lichfield, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Penrhyn, L.

Lindsey, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Londesborough, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Lucan, E.

Clinton, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Lytton, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cloncurry, L.

St. Levan, L.

Mayo, E.

Collins, L.

Sanderson, L.

Morley, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Sandys, L.

Northbrook, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Onslow, E.

De Freyne, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Powis, E.

Deramore, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Rosslyn, E.

Desart, L.

Stanmore, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Digby, L.

Templemore, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Dunalley, L.

Trevor, L.

Stanhope, E.

Dunboyne, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Stradbroke, E.

Dunleath, L.

Ventry, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Egerton, L.

Waleran, L.

had upon the Paper an Amendment to the clause in the following terms:—
"Page 8, lines 14 to 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert the following new subsection—

809
'(1) When application is made under subsection (1) of the Act of nineteen hundred and three for an advance of the whole purchase money of any holding, the Land Commission, if they are satisfied that one or more of the following circumstances exist, namely—

(a) that the judicial rent was fixed by agreement or consent and not after judicial inquiry in court;

(b) that the price agreed upon includes more than one year's arrears of rent;

(c) that the holding is a congested holding within the meaning of this Act;

(d) that since the judicial rent was fixed the holding has permanently deteriorated owing to physical causes beyond the control of the tenant; they may make inquiry as to the security for the advance, and they may by order declare that the provisions of the same subsection shall not apply, and may deal with the application accordingly, as if those provisions had not been complied with.'''

He asked if Lord MacDonnell desired to move the whole of the subsection as amended.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said that as he understood that the Committee had just accepted the suggestion in paragraph (b) of his Amendment, he wished to withdraw that paragraph and to move the remainder of his Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The noble Lord's Amendment might come as an addition, but I do not think he could move to leave out subsection (1) of Clause 14. He might move his proposed Amendment as a new subsection without paragraph (b).
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD said the noble Marquess opposite had stated that he was willing to consider proposals to prevent the occurrence of other difficulties in the zone system, and he (Lord MacDonnell) desired to propose the Amendment on the Paper, with the exception mentioned. He had endeavoured in his previous remarks to explain to their Lordships how the difficulties and abuses had occurred in reference to agreements fixed out of Court—agreements that had not been subjected to the process of judicial examination. He had explained to their Lordships, or endeavoured to explain, how this difficulty was met by the adoption by the Estates Commissioners of the plan of refusing to declare the property an estate until they were satisfied that the difficulties they were endeavouring to remedy did not exist. Under that plan, which the Commissioners adopted, the Act of 1903 had had the phenomenal success to which noble Lords had alluded in the course of the debate. Under a recent judicial decision the Estates Com-
810
missioners were now declared to be not competent to adopt the procedure which they had adopted during the last five years and under which proceedings had been conducted without friction and with great success. As the Commissioners were now prevented from adopting that line, he proposed that where the judicial rent had been fixed by agreement or consent after the promulgation of the Act of 1903 the Estates Commissioners should be qualified, when they saw sufficient reason, to make inquiry with a view to seeing whether the property was security for the advance which was called for. He made no proposal that they should inquire into the equity of the bargain or the equity of the contract between the vendor and the tenant. He dealt with that in a subsequent Amendment which he proposed to Section 20. In regard to the first part of his Amendment, it was only concerned with judicial rents fixed by agreement or contract after the passing of the Act of 1903. Before the passing of that Act there was obviously no inducement to the parties to enter into any arrangements which were calculated to injure the public revenue. There was no question of zones then, no question of advances; consequently there was no object in going behind the date of 1903. He therefore wished to limit it in paragraph (a) of his Amendment to transactions which had taken place since the year 1903. The next point he proposed was that the Estates Commissioners should be entitled to inquire whether the estate contained congested holdings. Congested holdings did not come within the zones. By the Act of 1903 they were excluded from the zones and it seemed to him the fact of that exclusion was sufficient reason why an inquiry should be made. His last reason was connected with the physical causes of deterioration, which the noble Marquess opposite seemed to think might form reasonable ground for inquiry.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, lines 14 to 22, to leave out subsection (1) and to insert the following new subsection—
'(1) When the application is made under subsection (1) of the Act of nineteen hundred and three for an advance of the whole purchase money of any holding, the Land Commission, if they are satisfied that one or more of the following circumstances exist, namely

(a) that the judicial rent was fixed by agreement or consent after the passing of the Act of 1903 and not after judicial inquiry in court;

(b) that the price agreed upon includes more than one year's arrears of rent;

811

(c) that the holding is a congested holding within the meaning of this Act;

(d) that since the judicial rent was fixed the holding has permanently deteriorated owing to physical causes beyond the control of the tenant; they may make inquiry as to the security for the advance, and they may by order declare that the provisions of the same subsection shall not apply, and may deal with the application accordingly, as if those provisions had not been complied with.'"(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think the beginning of the new subsection proposed by the noble Lord is rather repeating what has been already passed. The words from "when" to "namely," or nearly the same words, have been adopted in connection with the Amendment of Lord Atkinson. Probably the object of the noble Lord would be served if he introduced his alternative cases at the end of Lord Atkinson's, preceding them with the words "or if they are satisfied."
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD accepted the Lord Chairman's suggestion and deleted from his Amendment the words "When application is made," &c., down to "namely." He also deleted paragraph (b), and inserted before paragraph (a) the words "Or if they are satisfied."
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON VISCOUNT MIDLETON said that if the Amendment of the clause was ruled by the House of Commons to be a breach of privilege the original clause would' stand, and so far as he knew their Lordships would have no further power to deal with it. The clause without amendment seemed to him so dangerous that he moved its omission.
Amendment moved—
"To leave out Clause 14."—(Viscount Midleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee to-morrow.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at five minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m., till a quarter past Four o'clock p.m.